CCIA Slams Congressional Representatives Who Unfairly Attack US Companies For Speaking Up Against SOPA

from the good-for-them dept

The folks over at CCIA have made a really good point. One of the most offensive parts of the SOPA debate is how supporters of the bill, mainly Lamar Smith, have missed absolutely no opportunity to slam Google at every turn, while at the same time going on and on about how he's just trying to protect American jobs. Google and other SOPA critics are American companies with legitimate concerns. Attacking them by claiming they just want to profit from "piracy" isn't just disingenuous, it's an obnoxious and misleading attempt to avoid substantive debate:
The stimulative efforts of our companies in promoting freedom, democracy and more open societies is matched by no other industry in modern times. In the Middle East and around the world tech companies have stuck our necks out to be true to our principles. In contrast, we can think of other industries and companies that have sometimes worked hard to protect themselves and their markets by propping up status-quo repressive regimes.

Our companies have helped the Arab spring evolve and made it more possible for Russians to protest suspect elections. Our companies have sacrificed profits to withdraw from countries that would use our platforms to violate human rights. The most significant example was the costly decision by Google to pull search out of mainland China - the largest Internet market. That voluntary act, taken because of a commitment to principle and concerns about security and free expression was uplifting to many, though mocked by those for whom profit matters above all else.

It is, therefore, especially outrageous to suggest that any of our companies, and especially Google, who are opposed to this immature legislation do so because they greedily want to do business with rogue sites.

We are also proud that 3 of our members, among the largest US Internet companies [Yahoo, Microsoft and Google] have formed the GNI to defend global Internet freedom and condemn filtering and censorship.
It really is a pretty offensive political smear, considering the widespread opposition to SOPA from all sorts of individuals and companies that have absolutely nothing to do with piracy. Furthermore, even the idea that Google "profits from piracy" is pretty ridiculous. As we've seen from the various cases against sites, these sites make almost no money... and it's extremely unlikely they make money from Google. Most don't even appear to have Google ads, and for those that do, Google only makes money if people click on the ads, and people surfing these so-called "rogue sites" aren't likely to be people clicking on ads.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:14pm

    and people surfing these so-called "rogue sites" aren't likely to be people clicking on ads.

    Citation needed

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:03am

      Re:

      Citation needed


      Look at the numbers for the guy they arrested for Channelsurfing.net. That guy made less than minimum wage. People going to those kinds of sites are looking to click on content, not on ads.

      Similarly, I run a site that has a fairly tech savvy audience, many of whom have also used such sites. I can tell you first hand that no one clicks on Google ads. We have them, and they make us next to nothing.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:30am

        Re: Re:

        oh look, it's more intellectual dishonesty from Mike Masnick. How utterly shocking...

        http://torrentfreak.com/kino-to-main-admin-sentenced-to-3-years-in-jail-111211/

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          oh look, it's more intellectual dishonesty from Mike Masnick. How utterly shocking...

          http://torrentfreak.com/kino-to-main-admin-sentenced-to-3-years-in-jail-111211/


          Th e only intellectual dishonesty I see here is from you. First of all, nothing in that article suggested that Kino.to made its money from Google ads. Second, it appears that the site made its money mostly from those revenue traps. That has nothing to do with Google.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Just John (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You are missing a few facts.

          Like the "premium services offered on the hosting sites".

          It shows they in fact made money other ways than just advertising, and automatically saying "They had advertising, they made money, so A+B=???" is intellectually dishonest because you leave out the actual money generated by each factor. How do you know the advertising was not 1 Euro of the total monetary gain?

          Less FUD, more facts. 謝謝你。

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 1:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The trained car mechanic from Leipzig allegedly brought in nearly 400,000 euros via site advertising and what were described in court as “subscription traps”, services that suck unsuspecting users into expensive recurring payments for otherwise free products.

          Now show us the breakdown that shows how much was from advertising. Until then, you're a lying shill on a smear campaign.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 1:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            one dollar+ was from advertising.

            Go live somewhere where following laws is an optional exercise.

            Let us know what it's like.

             

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh look a dishonest person.

          At the course of 3 years assuming all came from Google, which is improbable he made a total of 77K a year, OMG he is rich.

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:41am

        Re: Re:

        And your own figures posted here show that people use Google to search for pirated content.

        Search. Search hits. Traffic. Money.

        Who exactly do you think you're fooling with your propaganda?

        Thankfully, not Congress.

        Someday you should explain to everyone why you hate record labels, i.e. "gatekeepers", "middlemen" so much.

        Did they deny you a job at some point? Are you looking to replace them?

        I don't see a non-musical person/people being the new conduit in the music business working out well for any musician, anywhere.

        And I'm betting the market will prove me correct. So far, even after 13 years of free-for-all piracy, it has indeed done just that.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And your own figures posted here show that people use Google to search for pirated content.

          Search. Search hits. Traffic. Money.


          Um. Learn how Google works. They don't make money off of that.

          Someday you should explain to everyone why you hate record labels, i.e. "gatekeepers", "middlemen" so much.

          I don't hate the labels at all. I've explained this many times over. I'm frustrated that they appear to be run by idiots and are driving themselves into the ground.

          Did they deny you a job at some point? Are you looking to replace them?


          Heh. Wasn't it just yesterday that you were pretending that you "knew" I'd been turned down for a job by one of them? Sorry, no. Never wanted to work for a label nor do I want to replace them. I'm hoping to help them succeed -- just as I was hoping to help you succeed when you admitted that you were a music industry flop.

          You refused to take me up on my offer.

          Oh well.

          In the meantime, have you donated the $500 you owe the EFF for Dajaz1 being declared innocent? Or are you going to squirm out of that?

          I don't see a non-musical person/people being the new conduit in the music business working out well for any musician, anywhere.

          And I'm betting the market will prove me correct. So far, even after 13 years of free-for-all piracy, it has indeed done just that.


          Wait, you think the labels are run by musical people?

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:09am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Um. Learn how Google works. They don't make money off of that.

            The search engine Google does not make money off search. Got that everyone? Mike Masnick, a guy that claims to not be intellectually dishonest, just said that the search engine Google does not make money off search.

            Gotcha. Righto, Mike.

            I was hoping to help you succeed when you admitted that you were a music industry flop.

            LOL. More intellectual dishonesty! You just can't help yourself, can you?

            You know who I am, Masnick.

            Why are you lying to your readers about this "flop" business?

            have you donated the $500 you owe the EFF

            http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidence-dom ain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet---law.shtml#c1304

            "Masnick wanted to make a bet with me. Here's the bet Masnick:

            If torrent-finder is cleared of all charges, I'll donate $500 to a charity of your choice.

            If they aren't, you donate $500 to MusiCares."

            I later expanded the bet to all the sites being "cleared of all charges".

            Feel free to present a citation that the blatantly infringing site dajaz was "cleared of all charges" by the government.

            Happy to wait for that.

            Oh, and btw, Torrent-Finder.

            Wait, you think the labels are run by musical people?

            Wait, you still think you know what you're talking about when it comes to music and/or the music business?

            Mike Masnick: Music Industry Mover and Shaker. Need some advice on music y'all? Why, Mike Masnick is your first call!

            haha

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The search engine Google does not make money off search. Got that everyone? Mike Masnick, a guy that claims to not be intellectually dishonest, just said that the search engine Google does not make money off search.

              Gotcha. Righto, Mike.


              You're a moron. They don't make money off of search. They make money off of ADS. And they only make money if people click.

              You know who I am, Masnick.


              I don't actually. I only know that you admitted that you were a flop.

              Feel free to present a citation that the blatantly infringing site dajaz was "cleared of all charges" by the government.

              Happy to wait for that.

              Oh, and btw, Torrent-Finder.


              Nope. I said I'd make the bet if it was *ABOUT THE BLOG SITES* such as Dajaz1. And the gov't dropped the case, which means they were cleared of the charges.

              http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidenc e-domain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet---law.shtml#c1601

              Where's your check?

              Mike Masnick: Music Industry Mover and Shaker. Need some advice on music y'all? Why, Mike Masnick is your first call!

              Amusingly, considering the calls I do get, it seems that a lot of musicians actually agree with the statement above, even though you think you're mocking me.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:20am

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

                ok then, where was the dajaz seizure "not deemed legal"?

                oh, and btw, torrent-finder.

                where's your check?

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 8:19am

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

                  ok then, where was the dajaz seizure "not deemed legal"?


                  When the gov't returned it without taking action.

                  oh, and btw, torrent-finder.


                  What about it? They're being illegally detained too. No forfeiture hearing. Let's see how that one shakes out. Perhaps you owe $1000 to EFF.

                   

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

            •  
              icon
              btrussell (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:07am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I later expanded the bet..."

              You sound like a label operator, not a musician.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Ninja (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:10am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Wow. Just wow.

              Google making money from SEARCHES was just gold. I'm gonna set up a search engine then. Because when ppl search the algorithm Google uses generates money out of thin air. Mike has already replied, it's the advertisement, moron. And ppl like you want SOPA passed...

              I remember the $500 thing. You were all full of yourself telling that there would be no err, no collateral damage, no innocents harmed.

              Feel free to present a citation that the blatantly infringing site dajaz was "cleared of all charges" by the government.

              You are indeed a moron. First of all the domain was given back these days because the retards at ICE/DOJ couldn't find anything that would stick as a charge. There was no case to begin with. And blatantly infringing? Are you retarded? Takes some reading to discover that all the music posted at the blog was legit and delivered by the owners themselves. Get a clue, idiot.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:32am

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

                Mike has already replied, it's the advertisement, moron.

                I must have missed the part where I said it wasn't. I'm very aware of how their business model works.

                But I didn't miss the part where Masnick said that those ads resulted in no profit for either Google or the pirate sites.

                Google's market cap is 200 billion fucking dollars. Really. It is. Seriously, look it up.

                All of their revenue is of course derived entirely on legitimate sources.

                LOL

                http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/google-agrees-to-pay-fine-for-listing-illegal-pharmac ies-20110824

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  btrussell (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:42am

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

                  "All of their revenue is of course derived entirely on legitimate sources."

                  What is illegal? Search? G-mail? Google docs?

                  A site that they indexed with their search? Are they infringing on the labels cocaine distribution channels?

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:35am

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

                  Such a dipwad. You do realize, don't you, that market cap comes from stock purchases, not sales? Hmmmm....????

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 11:21am

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

                    Yes assface, I do. You do realize that the willingness of an investor to purchase equity is based on a company's EARNINGS, hmmm?

                     

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

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Dec 17th, 2011 @ 3:01pm

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

                      Yes, just like in the Dot Com fiasco, all those earnings...oh wait.

                      There may be a link between earnings and market cap, but it is NOT a direct line, as you regurgitate.

                       

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 8:37am

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

                  I must have missed the part where I said it wasn't. I'm very aware of how their business model works.

                  But I didn't miss the part where Masnick said that those ads resulted in no profit for either Google or the pirate sites.


                  You said they got money directly from search. They don't. They get money when people click on those ads. ANd people on the sites in question don't click on the ads.

                  And I didn't say "no profit," but negligible.

                  Google's market cap is 200 billion fucking dollars. Really. It is. Seriously, look it up.


                  And if there were no piracy, it would still be 200 billion. Really.

                   

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:40am

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

                all the music posted at the blog was legit and delivered by the owners themselves.

                Free advice: Lying and/or being ignorant, not a healthy way to walk through life.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 5:45am

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

                  Maybe you should help yourself to some of that humble pie then, huh?

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 18th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

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

                  You still haven't proven otherwise, so we'll keep calling you the lying shill. You've already admitted you work for the industry, thus: shill.

                   

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

              •  
                icon
                hmm (profile), Dec 18th, 2011 @ 10:01am

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

                You mean you didn't know about google's amnesia-algorithm?

                You can't remember inputting your credit card details the last time you visited www.google.com?

                Yes apparently each search costs you [insert made-up $$$'s here] every time you search for something......heheheheh

                 

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:24am

          Re: Re: Re:

          People also use Bing, Baidu, YaCy, Facebook, Orkut, Twitter, Forums.

          I don't see a non-musical person/people being the new conduit in the music business working out well for any musician, anywhere.


          Who are the CEO's of record labels and studios again?
          Labels may have been founded by artists or art lovers but today they are managed by ex-lawyers and accountants, so you may want to rephrase your assertions.

          The new conduit for music will be tech people, you know the ones that understand what they are doing on the internet.

          And I'm betting the market will prove me correct. So far, even after 13 years of free-for-all piracy, it has indeed done just that.


          I have been waiting for you people to enforce copyright for a decade now, and I think I will die of old age before you or anybody will be capable of doing that.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You have no idea what you're talking about.

            I could ask you a dozen questions about music, record labels, the music business, etc, and you wouldn't be able to answer a single one without using google to cheat.

            Go away.

             

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

    Google only cares about one thing: money.

    Why do you think they should be able to profit off piracy?

    Answer that question.

    BTW, trying to change the topic to "why should the AAs be able to make a profit" isn't answering the question. Attempts to avoid the question will be mercilessly mocked and snickered at, ultimately leading to you being completely tuned out and ignored.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:21pm

      Re:

      How much do they profit off of piracy and do you have any citations?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:23pm

      Re:

      "BTW, trying to change the topic to "why should the AAs be able to make a profit" isn't answering the question."

      Building a strawan only makes you look like a fool.

      "ultimately leading to you being completely tuned out and ignored."

      That's why you have to come to Techdirt to get an audience, because starting your own blog doesn't get you one. Everyone merely ignores you and no one will visit your blog. You come to Techdirt because Mike and others aren't ignored and so that's where the audience is.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:26pm

        Re: Re:

        and lets not forget that the **AA et al tried to start their own petition in support of SOPA and most people ignored it. They even initially inflated their numbers and many who did sign were fooled into signing and later wanted their names removed. Yet petitions against SOPA weren't ignored and gathered a much larger audience.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:24pm

      Re:

      STFU already.
      Which corporation doesn't care about money?
      Google is not one of the more evil ones, is not like they use creative accounting to not pay artists like labels and studios do is it?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:49am

        Re: Re:

        You're right, record labels never pay musicians. That's how all those musicians that used to never tour, who "already made enough money", bought their cribs, right?

        The Beatles, who stopped touring in 1966, had to go get day jobs in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s because they never made any money off record sales, right?

        Moron.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Idiot.
          The Beatles had their own distribution company.

          Also they got screwed anyways which prompted John to say:
          "I'm sick of being fucked about by men in suits sitting on their fat arses in the City."

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            And that's why John Lennon blew off record labels and always released his music by himself.

            oh wait...

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh that is right John Lennon was making tones of money from the Beatles catalog right?

              Oh wait, the last owner passed away I think his name was Michael Jackson :)

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 11:18am

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

                Oh look, it's another dork on Techdirt that thinks he understands the music business.

                Go look up the difference between sales royalties and publishing royalties, bozo.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Michael, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 5:31pm

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

                  "Oh look, it's another dork on Techdirt that thinks he understands the music business."

                  Enough to understand what a complete and utter scam it is to sign with a major record label. Anyone with a funtional brain can figure out how to type "music industry indentured servitude" into a search engine and read a slew of horror stories from industry insiders who know what they're talking about.

                  "Go look up the difference between sales royalties and publishing royalties, bozo."

                  Don't need to -- I'm well aware of how it all works by now. I'll reiterate what I said: Any artist that doesn't sell a million copies can forget about seeing any significant profit, and even many that do sell as much never see a dime. Furthermore, when someone signs a deal with a major record label, they may as well be signing away all the rights to their work because the labels will do everything in their power to retain ownership.

                  I highly recommend this short interview with Dick Dale who gives artists the advice they need:
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AJxc3Lxn4o

                   

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're right, record labels never pay musicians.

          No one said they "never" pay artists? Why would you lie?

          But even the labels themselves admit that only about 10% ever recoup. So, it's true, that for the vast majority of label artists, they never see a dime in royalties.

          Yes, a few bands recoup, but it's exceedingly rare -- and the labels have been shown to clearly play accounting games to keep an artist from recouping and getting paid:

          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091201/1957497156.shtml
          http://www.techdirt.com/article s/20110808/04134515432/emi-doesnt-pay-royalties-it-does-to-wrong-people-it-doesnt-maybe-it-does.shtm l

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:50am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Thanks for backing up your biased opinions with cites of your own biased opinions, Masnick. It's totally convincing.

            And feel free to name a venture capital company that fronts a loan to people that never earn it back 90% of the time...

             

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

            •  
              icon
              kirillian (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Wow...the amount of venom in this thread is overwhelming. The point that Mike seemed to be making that you are quite obviously too dense to understand is that those venture companies KNOW that these artists will make back their investment. BUT, through accounting games, they are able to prevent the books from being balanced, so they can show that the artists still owe money in order that they have no need to pay out to the artists.

              We all don't have to be experts in this field to easily see the fraud that is going on here. The burden of proof for the claims being made in this thread is on you, not us. Most of us are regular readers/commenters and we know how to use Google to find citations. We regularly see citations from Mike and are used to him linking to his own articles which have commentary on source articles. You however, are an unknown, untrustworthy because you provide no citations or evidence in any way.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 11:24am

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

                Pretending that the random examples of malfeasance that Masnick enjoys pointing out represent how the music business is run all the time, is asinine.

                Only a willfully ignorant dolt would swallow such silliness.

                 

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

            •  
              icon
              Jeff (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 7:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              says the anonymous coward asswad...

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Michael, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 7:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "And feel free to name a venture capital company that fronts a loan to people that never earn it back 90% of the time..."

              That is intentionally misleading. The record labels front an extraneous amount of money into the production of the album, music videos, promotion, merchandising, et al. and keep the lion's share of the profit, usually to the tune of millions, leaving the artist to pay back the excessive loan out of their 10-13% cut. This is the reason why artists have come refer to signing with major record labels as 'indentured servitude,' because there's almost no way to break even. The labels then do a huge tax write-off at the end of the year. If the labels were suffering so much, the CEOs wouldn't be able to give themselves such huge bonuses.

               

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

          •  
            icon
            hmm (profile), Dec 18th, 2011 @ 10:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            A few bands DO recoup, but even the big guys occasionally get ripped off.

            In 1997, Meatloaf had to sue Sony Records for unpaid royalties going back to 1983 and his federal RICO (racketeering) claim was successful.

            i.e. even the COURTS have said the big labels are involved in organized crime/racketeering.

            http://thediscography.org/discoDbDetail.php?req=718

            Sony HATES it when people bring up the fact that they thought they could rip Meatloaf off, but got utterly and absolutely OWNED in court.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              hmm (profile), Dec 18th, 2011 @ 10:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              In fact, if you really wanna make Sony angry send their CEO a letter asking if they've paid Meatloaf everything they owe him under the judgements.....

               

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:26pm

      Re:

      Why can car companies profit from bank robbers?
      Why can gun owners profit from murderers?
      Why can chemical companies profit from bomb makers?
      Why can email providers profit from spam?
      Why can phone companies profit from fraud?
      Why can your employer profit from your stupidity?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:30pm

        Re: Re:

        "Why can your employer profit from your stupidity?"

        I'm not sure that his employer actually profits from his stupidity. Probably loses money.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Larry, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 10:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hm. Seems like he has it right and you jump to stupidity.

          Makes me wonder what YOU do for a living as you obviously spend all your time impressing them with your superior wit!

           

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:52am

        Re: Re:

        Why can idiots make nonsensical analogies on the internet?

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You have no legal grounds to stop others from making stupid or otherwise analogies, you don't have a monopoly on those granted or otherwise and even if you did have that monopoly you don't have the power to enforce it.

          So there is why.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Ted Appleby, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:56pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

      why do you think people should be able to profit through market destroying copyright monopoly?
      we should be abolishing copyright , it steals from everyone.

      http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:55am

        Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

        I don't believe you should have a monopoly on the coins in your pocket or any of your other possessions.

        By your logic, you need to hand them over to me now.

        I'll be waiting.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          btrussell (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 1:12am

          Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

          Go ahead and copy them.

          Let us know how much that costs will you?

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 1:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

            Pretty sure copying coins is illegal.

            So yeah, just hand over whatever I ask for.

            You have no right to a "monopoly".

            "Monopolies" are baaaaaad.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

              If you can't do it with your own means why should he hand over to you his coins?

              Pirates copy things they don't take things away, they use their own resources to create new copies so why can't you?

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:41am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

                I'll take his coins and he can copy his own.

                Sounds fair to me!

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  btrussell (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:01am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

                  In other words, you can't make "cents."

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 3:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

                  Be honest you couldn't take candy from a baby even if he was trying to give it to you and your life depended on it.

                   

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 2:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

              If you are not smart enough to take it from him, you are not smart enough to have those coins.

               

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 7:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

            He would probably use a photocopier, and count pennies and nickles as losses and dimes and quarters as profit...till the vending machine jams.

             

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 10:52pm

      Re:

      Lamar Smith cares only about one thing: money.

      Why do you think he should be able to profit off studios' greed?

      Attempts to avoid the question will be mercilessly mocked and snickered at, ultimately leading to you being completely tuned out and ignored.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:04am

      Re:

      The RIAA is one of the last trade unions with any power in the US. Well, technically, it's a trade organisation, but pedantics. *handwave*

      Why should Disney be able to profit off cultural theft of the public domain? Why should unoriginality be awarded in the arts world? Why are you too cowardly to register? Why do YOU profit of f of pirating the AC moniker?

       

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

      •  
        icon
        hmm (profile), Dec 18th, 2011 @ 10:20am

        Re: Re:

        Actually technically the RIAA its just a bunch of organized criminals constantly ripping off artists for everything they can and threatening to sue them (and occasionally threatening their families).

        RIAA/MPAA, and all the big labels have at one time or another been found guilty of organized crime and racketeering, but they always manage to bribe their way out of it.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      hmm (profile), Dec 18th, 2011 @ 9:54am

      Re:

      Why should ANYONE be able to make a profit should be the question...

      And the answer is, because they have a sustainable business model that isn't built on oppressing others or suppressing rival businesses, but instead innovates and outcompetes their rivals rather than risking violating basic human rights in the name of money.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    SD (profile), Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:43pm

    Doublethink

    Lamar Smith put Google in a list of "lawful companies and websites" that have "nothing to worry about under this bill" before attacking them, all in the same press release that CCIA is most likely responding to.

    http://judiciary.house.gov/news/12142011%20SOPA.html

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 8:53pm

    Anyone who wants to harm America should let SOPA pass, it is a wonderful tool for reducing economic output and job opportunities creation, it also will send most of internet companies packing to other regions of the world where no such laws exist, shifting money, research and development to other regions.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 9:05pm

    "The stimulative efforts of our companies in promoting freedom, democracy and more open societies is matched by no other industry in modern times"

    Maybe it is this they are afraid of.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 9:14pm

    I seem to recall that Google got dinged this year with a hefty fine. If I recall correctly, the fine resulted from Google serving up ads associated with non-licensed pharmacies in Canada, some of which I understand had, to be charitable, lax rules concerning doctor prescriptions for drugs.

    While this is not representative of Google as a whole, calling this out is not really any different than opponents doing the very same thing concerning proponents. Six sigma events should be eschewed in any debate on the merits/demerits of the pending bills.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 9:33pm

      Re:

      Yeah, we are aware of the event

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110824/14531015667/justice-department-to-protect-pharma- profits-well-just-take-money-google.shtml

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110830/17182115744/c anadian-pharmacies-react-to-us-govt-taking-500-million-google-over-their-ads.shtml

      It's not all that clear that Google did anything morally wrong, even if what they did was technically illegal since it wasn't in the best interests of big U.S. pharmaceutical corporations.

      I think consumers should ultimately have the health freedoms to decide what medicine and medical risks they wish to take and it's not the governments job to micromanage our health. The government is plagued with corrupt conflicts of interest and is not in a better position to know or care about what's in my best interest than me. If the government ran our health as well as they ran their budget, or anything else for that matter, we'd all be in very big trouble. No, I want to manage my own health thank you very much.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 15th, 2011 @ 10:28pm

        Re: Re:

        It's not all that clear that Google did anything morally wrong, even if what they did was technically illegal

        Since all the Canadian pharmacies were selling authentic name brand and generic drugs, at a lower cost so that those who could not otherwise afford life saving medicines could purchase them, Google was in fact morally correct. It's the US government that was (and still is) morally wrong by preventing or limiting access to those medicines.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 10:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What amazes me is that the U.S. doesn't want to regulate drug prices under 'free market capitalistic' principles but then they turn around and grant pharmaceutical corporations patents, that is an anti competitive, anti-free market capitalistic government established monopoly. Big corporations get it both ways, they get free market capitalism only when it suits them otherwise they get an unregulated, anti free market capitalistic, government established monopoly when it suits them.

          Every aspect of U.S. law is (almost) as optimally plutocratic as can be. The list of plutocratic, anti-free market capitalistic, anti competitive, and anti-consumer laws goes on and on and on. Every step of the way the U.S. tries to find various justifications for attempting to choose the most plutocratic combination of laws and rulings possible but there is no justification for it. Our government purely seeks plutocracy and doesn't care about the public interest. Our government takes away so many of our rights (through the endless impositions of very many government established monopolies) while giving us little to nothing in return (ie: no universal healthcare, not that I support such a thing, I don't. But at least in Canada, while their government does take away rights, they do have some pro-consumer laws that are intended to be publicly beneficial, like limiting drug prices and providing for healthcare. While the Chinese government does take away rights, at least they do provide for their people). Our government takes and takes and takes while providing us with almost nothing. They want to deny us the legal right to provide for ourselves and they don't want to provide for us with anything. They want us to work for big government established monopolists who can optimally exercise their government given power to optimally scam the public out of their hard work so that they can optimally benefit from the hard work of others while contributing little.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Just John (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually, while I agree with almost all of your post, I just wanted to let you know that the comment about China shows you have not lived in China, and know little about it.

            While they do have a hypothetical Universal Health care, it in fact is purely academic, and does not in fact universally cover everyone. In fact, if you have no money to pay the medical bills, hospitals will turn you away.

            This goes for almost all aspects in China.

            Other then this, I agree with most of what you wrote. Just want to set the record straight.

            PS. Please let me know if you want to argue, and I will post the information directly from Chinese citizens with links (But you will need to use a translate engine, since the sites are in Chinese. Feel free to visit here if you want to see a real life example of this.)

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Richard (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 1:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes - it's odd isn't it? China has never had a proper public healthcare system - even at the height of Maoist extremism. The Russian block generally did - but not China.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 5:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I don't really disagree with all that. But at least they don't have such strongly anti-consumer laws like strict IP enforcement and whatnot.

               

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:09am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            and to add to this list of anti-consumer laws, much pharmaceutical R&D gets publicly funded and yet it still gets covered by patents often in ways that unfairly benefit the private sector.

            http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110211/21345813068/next-tech-area-to-be-hindered-paten ts-nanotech-much-it-is-funded-with-your-tax-dollars.shtml

            The government seems to have almost no regard for the consumer or the public sector, which is why copy protection lengths last 95+ years and it keeps getting retroactively extended to the point that nothing ever enters the public domain anymore. It's also why the government establishes taxi cab monopolies and cableco monopolies along with the plethora of so many other government imposed monopolies.

            Again our government almost always selects the most anti-consumer combination of laws possible. Free market capitalism only when it helps industry; anti-competitive, anti-free market capitalistic laws only when it helps industry.

            Peer review journals often get the copy protections for published works yet they don't do any R&D, those conducting the peer review are also often volunteers that the journals don't pay for (talk about supporting the artists, only the middlemen are supported with our laws). The R&D is often paid for by taxpayer money, those who participate in and conduct pharmaceutical clinical trials are often volunteers.

            http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100802/01361110446.shtml

            http://www.techdirt.co m/articles/20060509/0914228.shtml?threaded=true

            "Journals get all of their content for free. They do not pay the authors. The journals often claim the copyright over those works as well -- despite the lack of payment. The journals also do not pay the peer reviewers either. The biggest expenses of most publications... not even present in such academic journals. And yet they still charge huge fees for the publication itself. It's a great scam, and they don't want it to end."

            http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100115/0038317770.shtml

            (at least the NIH requires that their publicly funded research becomes publicly available after a year, but other government agencies that fund R&D should also have similar requirements).

            I can go on but, the point is, as consumers, why do we tolerate this abuse?

             

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          That would be swell if Google was keeping an eye on the quality of drugs they were making money off of.

          They weren't.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not correct there Josh. Many of the "pharmacies" were shell corporations that were fronts selling fake drugs. Google has admitted in the Non Prosecution Agreement that they knew it was goIng on and even helped companies work around the rules. There's a reason they got dinged for half a BILLION dollars!

          Read the NPA; it's pretty clear Google is more than happy to break the law if it's profitable.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Many of the "pharmacies" were shell corporations that were fronts selling fake drugs."

            [citation needed]

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "There's a reason they got dinged for half a BILLION dollars!"

            Yeah, it's called bad U.S. governance. They broke rogue laws and so they got punished.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Many of the "pharmacies" were shell corporations that were fronts selling fake drugs.

            I distinctly remember when reading this original story that Google required the pharmacies that advertised to be part of a specific association that verified they were a legitimate pharmacy.

             

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

      •  
        icon
        btrussell (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 9:46pm

        Re: Re:

        "A Canadian sports doctor sought out by superstar athletes for help in healing from injuries avoided prison Friday for bringing unapproved and mislabelled drugs into the United States for house calls.

        Dr. Anthony Galea of Toronto was sentenced to time served Friday in U.S. District Court in Buffalo. The sentence amounted to a single day, that of Galea's arrest."
        http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2011/12/16/sp-galea-sentence.html?

        Google could have saved a shit load of money had they just smuggled the drugs in, rather than just giving options of places to buy.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:53am

      Re:

      If I recall correctly, the fine resulted from Google serving up ads associated with non-licensed pharmacies in Canada, some of which I understand had, to be charitable, lax rules concerning doctor prescriptions for drugs.

      You recall incorrectly. They were licensed pharmacies under an agency designed to license those Canadian pharmacies and ensure that they were legit. It was still illegal for those pharmacies to sell into the US, even though President Obama and even Senator Leahy have argued that it should be legal for them to do so.

      Even so, it's unclear why Google paid up when it should not have been liable. The pharmacies themselves could have been targeted for selling into the US, but for whatever reason the government went after Google.

      Either way, that has nothing to do with SOPA in any way, because the scenarios are entirely different. The argument is that "rogue sites" are making money from Google ads. The pharmacy situation involved the reverse: they were buying ads on Google.

      While this is not representative of Google as a whole, calling this out is not really any different than opponents doing the very same thing concerning proponents. Six sigma events should be eschewed in any debate on the merits/demerits of the pending bills.

      It's not that it's not representative of Google, it's that the situations are not even remotely analogous.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    TechnoMage (profile), Dec 15th, 2011 @ 9:18pm

    if only...

    This story would have been a LOT more interesting if it was what I read first:
    "CIA Slams Congressional Representatives Who Unfairly Attack US Companies For Speaking Up Against SOPA"
    ...now THAT, I would like to see

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Dec 15th, 2011 @ 9:50pm

    Collision

    This fight is getting pretty nasty pretty quickly. I would not be surprised if some blood is shed before this is all over.

    On one hand you have the paid up corrupt politicians looking to force SOPA through and make Hollywood happy. These are some quite arrogant people and of course a bunch of liars and they very keen indeed to seize control of the Internet.

    Then on the other side are those looking to protect the Internet and the many lawful businesses who would be abused by such a law. They know this is the worst Internet bill they have ever come up with and there is no way they can afford to let this one pass.

    Immovable object meets an unstoppable force. No matter the force behind each side something has to give. Someone may end up with what they can forever call their "SOPA scar" before this is over.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 10:04pm

      Re: Collision

      "Immovable object meets an unstoppable force."

      Maybe we need to apply L'Hopital's rule to see what happens. Does the function diverge onto infinity, does it go to zero, or does it converge to a finite number?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Larry, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 10:11pm

        Re: Re: Collision

        pfft. It's .44 mag to the chest vs. talkie talkie, cash the checkie..

         

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

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:09am

          Re: Re: Re: Collision

          All Google has to do is to cut off every single Congressman/Senator's indexing. Let's see how those fuckers like being censored. Imagine every speech by a politician, every rally, every debate - gone.

          The traitorous fuck shoud be shot nand have their assets disbursed to the poorest people, or to Alabama to fix the sewer works and cut down on the costs.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Just John (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 12:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Collision

            I love this idea!

            To bad we would not see it happen in reality, because you know if Google starts giving them a taste of their own medicine, the government would find a way to shut them down.

            They already take enough issue over their "Bigness"... (Why can't I find that article where a concern about "How big they are getting" came about? Can someone help me with the link?)

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        pissedoff, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 7:32am

        Re: Re: Collision

        It's a figure of speech smart ass! God you must be one of those guys that has to one-up everybody's story (nobody likes those people). Just STFU already.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 15th, 2011 @ 10:33pm

      Re: Collision

      looking to force SOPA through and make Hollywood happy.

      Hollywood will never be happy, at least until the internet is dead or turned into a locked down broadcast medium they control. If SOPA passes, we'll go through this all over again in a few years, with something that makes SOPA look moderate.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 15th, 2011 @ 11:30pm

        Re: Re: Collision

        Nuke it(IP law) from orbit is the only way to be sure!
        I'm looking forward to the day "content owner" as a job will bring laughs.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:12am

    Thanks for backing up your biased opinions with cites of your own biased opinions, Masnick. It's totally convincing.

    And feel free to name a venture capital company that fronts a loan to people that never earn it back 90% of the time...

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Marcel de Jong (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:23am

      Re:

      Feel free to come up with genuine points about why SOPA and PIPA need to exist.
      And no, 'piracy' is not one of those points, as you and I both know that neither bill really address that.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:27am

        Re: Re:

        You're right! The bill is actually about little green men on Mars!

        Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of PIPA/SOPA!!!

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          In fact it is since it will not do anything about piracy but will be used as a hammer to force other business to incur unnecessary costs that they will pass to the consumers.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Marcel de Jong (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 7:13am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's not about piracy, it's about control. The whole world already knows this... Yet you keep claiming otherwise. Makes you the fool, anon.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:14am

    And that's why John Lennon blew off record labels and always released his music by himself.

    oh wait...

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 4:18am

    Can't tell if serious or trolling?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:41am

    Suggestions
    - Make things available as soon as possible
    - Make things reasonably price
    - Geo-blocking does not work
    - Release windows are pointless
    - e-books costing more the physical books is maddness

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 6:58am

    The last thing we need are more laws to complicate business and day to day living. For those who truly are running black market business with fraudulent merchandise that can hurt and cause loss to genuine manufacture, there are already a sufficient amount of laws to get those convictions without more laws. Use what you have and continue to get legitimate indictments and convictions. Don't mess with free speech.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 7:21am

    It is amusing to see Mike trying to defend the indefensible: Pirate sites with advertising make at least some money, and they do drive more traffic back to the ad networks, often directly or indirectly Google.

    Further, these site often do "click washing", sending users out via various links on their sites to "third party sites" that they own but are clean as far as Google sees, and targets those users to high dollar per click ads - for a long time it was gambling, these days it seems to be hair replacement and credit card services.

    Without the pirated material, the sites wouldn't exist - they certainly wouldn't have enough surfers to make enough money to justify their existence.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Dec 16th, 2011 @ 7:57am

      Re:

      Yes, and I doubt anyone able to use torrents would figure out how to block ads.



      I think I am going to patent a perpetual motion machine. I can use some of the comments posted on this site as proof of concept of perpetual spin.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 7:35am

    100 get.

    Thankyou. :D

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    bshock, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 8:17am

    Of course Lamar Smith wants to avoid substantive debate

    SOPA supporters know that if they engage in "substantive debate," they will lose. SOPA is a solution for a problem that does not exist.

    In fact, it's worse than that. It's equivalent to giving chemotherapy to a healthy person -- it prevents nothing, and causes massive harm.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    aikiwolfie, Dec 17th, 2011 @ 6:24am

    SOPA Supporters Should Be Careful What They Wish For

    Part of me hopes this SOPA nonsense succeeds. Because if it does the supporters are going to suffer massively from reduced exposure on-line. And when that happens they'll have to spend an absolute fortune on advertising. However nobody will be paying attention. They'll all be checking out the other free stuff on-line.

    Big media, big content companies are definitely going to suffer. As will anybody else using SOPA to protect their "copyright".

    I wonder who they'll blame next for their floundering profits?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Dec 17th, 2011 @ 7:32am

      Re: SOPA Supporters Should Be Careful What They Wish For

      It's not just the lack of exposure that's going to hurt but disgruntled people who are going forego anything to do with Hollywood, major labels and so forth as a direct consequence. Count me in -- I'll support independent and foreign stuff. The big media corps are pissed because more and more people are turning away from their mass-produced garbage and turning towards alternatives. This has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with control, to do everything in their power to prevent competition. After all, nobody's allowed to succeed except for them, you know.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 18th, 2011 @ 6:19am

    Good to see Greg found a new 'home' after getting trounced on P2Pnet. Still shilling.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Dec 18th, 2011 @ 10:22am

    Really

    I'd love to know how many senators have taken campaign contributions from Chinese companies (read: chinese government) who would LOVE the US to be censored as it justifies (in their own tiny fear & hate filled minds) how they are abusing and raping their own people of their dignity and lives (and kidneys, if they happen to be compatible with those in power).

     

    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