New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull

from the sopa-can-ban-ya dept

We've written about UK singer Dan Bull a bunch of times, highlighting his various songs that often cover copyright issues. His latest is an anti-SOPA song and video, called SOPA Cabana (take a wild guess what that's a reference to). Check out the video here first, and read on below about the video and why it's interesting (beyond the music/lyrics):
First of all, what strikes me as most interesting about this is that Dan's not in the US, but the UK. But he recognizes how this law being debated in the US can have a significant and dangerous impact around the world. In talking about his reasons for doing a song about SOPA, Dan noted that "SOPA is abhorrent on three fronts:"
Firstly, it threatens the future of the internet, which is something far more valuable both commercially and socially than the entertainment industry ever has been, or ever will be.

Secondly, creativity is all about interpreting and re-imagining what you see and hear around you. The idea that creativity exists in some kind of vacuum, and that you're not a real artist unless you can make something "completely original" is not only stupid, it contradicts the most fundamental axioms of how the universe works. Everything is influenced by something else. If we want a richer cultural landscape, we should embrace remixes, embrace mashups, and embrace sharing, not cling to ideas as pieces of property.

Thirdly, the internet is an amazing new forum for free speech and holding those in power us to account. The idea that governments and even private corporations can police the internet and decide what people on a global scale are allowed to say and hear is tyrannical.
Perhaps even more interesting, however, is how the song and video came together. After deciding he wanted to write a song about SOPA, he reached out to his followers on Twitter, asking for "help with themes and lyrics." After getting a bunch of ideas, and realizing he should do something different for the video, he went on Facebook and asked for volunteers to take photos of themselves holding up signs with the various lyrics... and tons and tons of people jumped at the chance. The whole video was put together over the last few hours, and the whole effort is pretty impressive.

Dan Bull is a musician. The entertainment industry and the lobbyists supporting SOPA insist that they're doing this to protect people like Dan Bull -- but Dan is quite reasonably scared of what this law will do to his ability to succeed online. Dan Bull is as well known as he is because of the internet, and his ability to share his works wherever and however he likes. SOPA would make that a lot more difficult. It doesn't "protect" Dan Bull. It helps destroy the careers of folks like Dan Bull by limiting their ability to create, promote, distribute and communicate.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:04am

    and that's the thing. the industries and governments dont want people like dan bull using the internet because he isn't signed for a label and doesn't make any money for them and wants to keep his right to free speech etc. the labels want to control the internet so only their stuff is available, at a stupid price. the governments want to control the internet because they want everyone to remain brainwashed and not think for themselves or pass their thoughts on to others. just waiting for the conflict to start between the 2 entities.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:49am

      Re:

      What you don't seem to understand is that they don't care if he does or if he doesn't. Assigning that sort of malice to government or the labels is outright bullshit, no doubt something you learned reading Techdirt.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        The eejit (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:51am

        Re: Re:

        "Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."

        Arthur C. Clarke.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        abc gum, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:04am

        Re: Re:

        "Assigning that sort of malice to government or the labels is outright bullshit,"

        Deny all you want, it will not change anything - certainly not anyone's opinion of this bill, government, or the labels.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:58pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          He's not denying it, he's well paid to come here and tell us all there's no malice at all, not a bit of it. Nothing sneaky at all with SOPA/PIPA.

          Now all he has to do to collect it is make us believe him.

           

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

      •  
        icon
        Dementia (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:39am

        Re: Re:

        I would be very careful about calling bullshit on someone for assigning malice to the actions of corporations or governments. You may come to regret those words.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:33am

        Re: Re:

        "Assigning that sort of malice to government or the labels is outright bullshit"

        Yes, because we all know that government and industry have a long history of being so altruistic. History is not plagued with government malice and abuse. Most governments are so altruistic and even though clearly nefarious and malicious governments exist we must blindly accept that the U.S. government is somehow different against all intuition and evidence.

        Sorry, you are wrong. Outside of the Internet the government - industrial complex already wrongfully denies competition the means to compete through all sorts of government established monopolies. From taxi cab monopolies to broadcasting monopolies to cableco monopolies to laws that deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers without paying a parasitic third party licensing fees under the pretext that someone might infringe, to insane copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions designed to prevent previous content from competing with new content, the evidence suggests you are wrong.

        Also see

        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111219/10435717129/opinion-piece-cbs-says-chris-dodd-should-b e-fired-his-intransigent-position-sopapipa.shtml#c622

        for more evidence. Sorry, you are wrong, obviously so.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Trails (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:38am

        Re: Re:

        It's not malice it's greed. They want to lock out up and coming Youtube's and Spotify's in order to [try] to control distribution, and they're looking for legislative tools they can use as barrier to entry.

        They're not doing it because they're "eveil like the deveil", they're doing it to try to make sure they're the only distribution game in town.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:53pm

        Re: Re:

        Either Arthur C. Clarke or Issac Asimov

        "Against stupidity the Gods Themselves contend in vain."

         

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

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:40am

      Re:

      Yes and Yes !!!
      I am really Jordan Kratz the only present Punk rocker who grew up in the original 1970's scene of Boston and NYC !
      I am sharing a bunch of music as I give away all the music I have put out and I do allow filesharing,use on blogs,people using my music to make their own videos on youtube,etc.
      I love how I am downloaded almost every day by someone and I usually seed on TPB,BTJUNKIE,etc using the public trackers.
      See The GoreHounds,The Transplants (1976-79 bosotn),The Lynn Rebels, and big Meat Hammer Maine's oldest punk band(Formed 1989).
      These Bigwig Labels would love to shut down everyone of us who has not signed with them.
      Good luck Buttheads cause more likely those who Vote this one in will live out their lives in Infamy and will not get re-elected and people may even wake up and finally see you for what you truly are.
      I never wanted to sign with a big label and never would even for a million bucks !!!
      I am serious.An old school punker like me does not lie and obviously would hate these labels and my hate has gone on since the late 70's.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:17am

    That second point is an incredibly good point. Even us, humans, are a product of successive DNA mutations that have been happening for millions of years.

    And, like music, or films, some mutations were good, and some were bad: The "bad" ones have died away (think, Neanderthal), but the "good" ones have survived (Homo Sapiens). Likewise, bad remixes die off quickly, while good ones live on.

    It's just how the Universe works. The Universe is a remix!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:29am

    You wouldnt copy a black hole. if everyone was doing this for enjoyment how could parasite make money at the mpaa and riaa. This, my friends, is an outrage.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:35am

      Re:

      "You wouldnt copy a black hole"

      Of course not. I'd copy a really big Star. Then I could watch it go Supernova, collapse into itself and form a Black Hole.

      It want the full story, not just the lousy Hollywood rehash.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Butcherer79 (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:14am

      Re:

      You wouldnt copy a black hole

      Isn't that what the Large Hadron Collider is doing?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:50am

    "Secondly, creativity is all about interpreting and re-imagining what you see and hear around you. The idea that creativity exists in some kind of vacuum, and that you're not a real artist unless you can make something "completely original" is not only stupid, it contradicts the most fundamental axioms of how the universe works. Everything is influenced by something else. If we want a richer cultural landscape, we should embrace remixes, embrace mashups, and embrace sharing, not cling to ideas as pieces of property. "

    Aka, I am not creative enough to make things from scratch, or to make tributes to things myself, or to even bother to play the notes to make a song... so I want the right to use everyone else's stuff to do it, without having to pay them for the work they did.

    Typical content grifter mentality.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:56am

      Re:

      Um, you noticed the 4-chord song up above, didn't you? Your "point" is a scarecrow, designed to misrepresent others.

      Without Plato, there would be no Aristotle. Without Babbage, there would be no transistors. Without Rutherford, there would be no nuclear power. Without Franklin, the Amish way of life would be the norm. Without Waton and Crick, we wouldn't be able to cure certain genetic diseases.

      Everything is interconnected. From me to you to Kevin Bacon.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:11am

      Re:

      "I am not creative enough to make things from scratch, or to make tributes to things myself, or to even bother to play the notes to make a song... so I want the right to use everyone else's stuff to do it, without having to pay them for the work they did."

      Indeed - I see that you have used an existing language with which to communicate. Shame on you for not creating your own. sheesh, what a grifter.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:02am

        Re: Re:

        In fact, if I Google the phrase "I am not creative enough to make things from scratch", I can see he robbed it from someone else's comment made on another forum in 2005! He probably didn't even donate a penny to Mike for the privilege of using his server's disk space to store his comment, let alone for the privilege of connecting to his website software to begin with! All that free HTML he downloaded in order to post - what a freetard!

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:25am

        Re: Re:

        Yes dumbass, I used existing language, but I didn't cut parts out of someone else's book.

        Please, you guys are pathetic.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes dumbass, I used existing language, but I didn't cut parts out of someone else's book.

          Please, you guys are pathetic.


          No, we are mostly people with a scientific/mathematical/technical education who realise the impossibility of drawing a bright line between merely "using existing language" and "cut(ting) parts out of someone else's book".

          Your failure to see this problem is your problem, not ours.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The term "dumbass" was first used in the late 50s. Shouldn't you pay some royalties to whatever sharp wit coined it? And the word "pathetic" wasn't a pejorative until 1937 or so - doesn't the first writer to subvert its meaning deserve credit?

          Are you not creative enough to come up with your own insults?

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:21am

      Re:

      No one creates from scratch. People are a product of the culture around them just as much as the culture is a product of the people. There's no such thing as creating from scratch.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:51am

      Re:

      Yeah, we need originals like Dinsey's Alladin, Disney's Beauty and the Beast, Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, Disney's Pokahontas...

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Ed C., Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:14am

        Re: Re:

        No kidding! Back then, Disney didn't have to pay a cent to reuse the culture defining works from his childhood, but now we have his heirs and company demanding a kings ransom for everything he touched--even the stuff he didn't actually create.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:31am

        Re: Re:

        Don't forget, while they're the poster boys it's not just Disney and not just animation. Look at the recent and upcoming movies - Puss In Boots, Sherlock Holmes, Three Musketeers, Conan, John Carter Of Mars, Clash/Wrath Of The Titans, Jack the Giant Killer, at least 2 film versions of Snow White.

        That's just the movies based on public domain material, let alone the remakes and adaptations of other media still under (vastly, retroactively extended) copyright. But of, course, this is all created by his glorious beloved corporations rather than independent artists, so it's acceptable. Just don't you *dare* try to use any of the resulting footage without payment in the next 100+ years! God forbid future generations of artists should have the same wealth of art to draw from...

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:01am

      Re:

      Aka, I am not creative enough to make things from scratch, or to make tributes to things myself, or to even bother to play the notes to make a song... so I want the right to use everyone else's stuff to do it, without having to pay them for the work they did.

      Typical content grifter mentality.


      Show us one example of a work that you would NOT call a product of content grifter mentality and you might have the beginnings of a point - however you can't - and so you don't have a point.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Ed C,, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:24am

      Re:

      Everyone else has to continue working to get paid, why should you keep getting paid, into the next century, for a single work you did yesterday. No one else gets that luxury, and no one deserves it either. The only "content grifter" I see here is you, using content as an excuse to grift the public long after your dead.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Mr. LemurBoy (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:36am

      Re:

      Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe"?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:06am

      Re:

      Hey freetard have you paid your royalties to Ford, Boeing, Toshiba, Cisco, Intel, Monsanto for using their products without paying?

      And I am not talking about the first payment you made, I am talking about the payment for all the money those things enabled you to make without having it to give the producer of the tools you use to do it money.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Stephan Huebner, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:24am

      Re: What a load of bs

      Obviously you have never been creative in your whole life. Or, if you've been and state that your art depends on nothing but your own imagination, then you are a lyer or you are decepting yourself. There are *very, very* few innovations that have no "blueprint" somewhere else. I am sure if you dig deep enough (often even not so deep) you will find all the popular jokes, all the rhythms that we listen to and all the stories we read in some slight variant before whomever claims copyright on it. Just read interviews with honest artists and they usually love to tell you about their own favourite artists.
      It's absolutely impossible to not be influenced by the things you hear, even less from people you admire. Taking already existing ideas in art and vary them to something new is not at all something unusual, it's the rule.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:35pm

      Re:

      You do understand, do you not that everything is built on the ideas and expressions of what came before. The odds after 200.000 years of humans writing that someone coming up with something entirely original are enormously against it. Even then what was written is based on stories and creations communicated orally before someone took pen to parchment or dried reeds, or a stick to blocks of clay.

      Even the pyramids were built on principles discovered and used before they were constructed, not by slaves it turns out but by free people.

      The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Hebrews and Persians knew the world was round, not flat. Though some technically "advanced" people today insist it's flat.

      Every great symphony is built on the works around it from previous compositions to folk music around it. Rock and blues and modern country owe to those who write and performed inner city black music, white and black gospel music and country and western that came before, with injections of Jamacian music particularly from the British Invasion.

      And all of this isn't creative but is somehow wrong in your world because it borrowed and absorbed what came before it almost always without pay? How do you pay the guy or gal around the campfire a thousand or so years ago that first sung or played to tune to what became your favourite hymn or dance tune?

      All of this means Mozart, Litz, McCartney & Lennon, Rogers and Hammerstien, Gilbert and Sullivan, Bob Dylan, Dylan Thomas, Shakespeare, the writers of the Bible, Homer and every other notable creative people and hundreds of thousands more all have "typical content grifter mentality" because they built their own works influenced by or borrowimg from those who came before both known and unknown?

      Oh heck, I didn't know piracy what THAT widespread. I had no idea what it cost us and the world culturally. Now if only the RIAAs and MPAAs of the time had only stopped it! It's so horrible, it's unbelievable what it's cost us! Where was Congress, SOPA and PIPA to stop all this cultural carnage and laying waste. pillaging, rape and destruction of culture!

      Oh. wait a second. It's our culture I've just described. Isn't it? All of it borrowed, recast and remixed by content grifters. Not at all a bad outcome. Pretty damned good one I'd say.

      And you want to stop this? Are you nuts? Of course you are. Freeze something dynamic into something static and surrounded with amber so that it never, ever moves again, never ever creates again.

      Even the English language "pirates" words from other languages when it needs them. Remember "detente"? A French word? Our language didn't trot of the L'Academe Francaise in Paris to arrange for royalties to that language. English just "pirated" it. Just as it pirated the world "chuck" meaning water from the Salish of the pacific northwest. Guess we owe them big time, too.

      Either you're nuts or the rich, varied dynamic culture around us is. I vote for you as the nutty one.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Rich, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:56am

    That's all you've got? Trolls are getting lazy...

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:10am

    Firstly, it threatens the future of the internet, which is something far more valuable both commercially and socially than the entertainment industry ever has been, or ever will be. i


    No doubt about that statement.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:11am

    The idea that governments and even private corporations can police the internet and decide what people on a global scale are allowed to say and hear is tyrannical.

    Well, it's not unreasonable for the owners of the infrastructure to have some say over its use is it? I don't think halting spam, malware, child porn, infringing content and counterfeit medication is tyrannical. Who is going to do that, individuals? Nor do the laws the currently govern civil society magically evaporate in the Internet space.

    Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music. And perhaps if he ever gets to the level where people are wiling to pay for his music, his rights will be protected and others will be prevented from profiting from his creativity.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:18am

      Re:

      Hopefully it will be for 200+ years. I see how nothing bad could come of that.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:20am

      Re:

      "Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music."

      Except for the various ways it can be used to do exactly that which you claim it can't.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:26am

      Re:

      Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music unless the outlets he uses for distribution on the internet are all shut-down as a result of actions allowed by SOPA you mean? Love that tacit suggestion the music isn't worth worrying with that quip about paying for it. Were you always this good at being an obtuse tool or did you take lessons?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:45am

        Re: Re:

        Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music unless the outlets he uses for distribution on the internet are all shut-down as a result of actions allowed by SOPA you mean?

        You act like his sole means of distribution are pirate sites. He can easily distribute himself, use legitimate sites, license his music, or urge sites he wants to use to not distribute infringing content. He's not obliged to only use infringing sites. This is why law makers discount your position. You act like no one will ever be able to access this artists stuff. That's simply untrue. BTW, have you done a Google search to see how he currently distributes?

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You act like 'pirate sites' is a phrase that's not just loaded language nonsense and that the distinction between 'pirate sites' and 'legitimate sites' is a line clearly drawn in the statute and would be easily enforceable even if it were. We're talking about the same content distribution companies that sued YouTube and rank Megaupload high on 'rogue sites' lists aren't we? You're either ignorant of the history and the reality surrounding this issue or you've got a vested interest in feigning willful blindness to advance a point. So I ask again, were you always this good about being an obtuse tool or did you take lessons?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I was planning on responding to this bunch of bull, but the AC above me covered my arguments quite well.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          NetworkAdmin, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Except when an RIAA or MPAA company, life Universal Music Group, claims that the content is infringing and the site takes it down to make sure that they're protecting their asses. Sure, in the long run, that would be reversed in court, but that would be after the artist went broke fighting over it.

          don't believe me - UMG just did it to Megaupload and an online News Podcast last week.

          The problem with the statement that they can use "legitimate" means or websites. That's the problem, the RIAA is against using any sort of Cloud Storage or File Locker for Music Storage. They've already claimed Megaupload and Rapidshare are "rogue sites" despite the Dept of Justice saying otherwise. And they've claimed multiple times that things like Google Music and Amazon Music Cloud are illegal. So tell me, what are the other "legitimate" options that the content companies don't own and that an independent artist who still works at walmart to pay his bills can use to get started?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You act like his sole means of distribution are pirate sites. He can easily distribute himself, use legitimate sites, license his music, or urge sites he wants to use to not distribute infringing content. He's not obliged to only use infringing sites. This is why law makers discount your position. You act like no one will ever be able to access this artists stuff. That's simply untrue. BTW, have you done a Google search to see how he currently distributes?

          Under his video he has a link to download the file... from MediaFire -- one of the sites that your bosses are hoping to shut down:

          http://www.mediafire.com/?irti8n56awtu6px

          So, uh, yeah, if SOPA passes he'll have more trouble getting his music out there.

          As for how he distributes the album, he tries to use a variety of platforms. When I first learned about Dan, he offered his first album up at a pay-what-you-want model, and I paid him for it.

          Not sure what your point is. Dan has leveraged free music to create a very large following these days and he makes money from his music because of it.

          Seems like someone who would be significantly harmed by what you and your bosses are trying to do in Congress.

          Why are you trying so hard to harm creative people like Dan?

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:28am

      Re:

      Wow. Just wow. Your first comment does nothing to address the statement being made. He's talking about policing the internet to contrl what people see and hear. And here you are, spewng about spam and malware (which people generally install THEIR OWN software to do, I don't see spam and malware prevention in an ISPs infrastructure. )

      Oh, and then you tack on child porn (to make it look like you are thinking of th children) and then infringing content and counterfeit products. Well, what the fuck do the last three have to do with the first two? Absofuckinglutely nothing.

      He's not talking about spam and malware, which I've already said people choose to block, and surprise, people get to pick and choose what they think is spam and what isn't.

      And did you think maybe he doesn't want his rights protected to the extremes copyright grants? Not sure what uk time frames are, but life plus 70 or 90 years is pretty damnd excessive. (And not limited in my lifetime, or for that matter, anyones)

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:37am

        Re: Re:

        I don't see spam and malware prevention in an ISPs infrastructure. )

        Look again numb nuts. You are wrong.


        people get to pick and choose what they think is spam and what isn't.

        When you click the little box on your e-mail program that says "This is spam" what do you think happens next?

        Well, what the fuck do the last three have to do with the first two? Absofuckinglutely nothing.

        They all can be interdicted at the ISP level.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I can't wait for a time in the future when the ISP is considered useless as middlemen and gatekeepers are now.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The point is that although ISPs do (along with the providers of OS, browser and Mail s/w) provide infrastructure to prevent spam and malware - in general the decision about what is undesirable rests with the user.

          Youtube is largely porn-free because it provides tools to the user community to flag offending videos. Other video sites, with a different userbase have different standards. An individual can choose which sites, s/w etc they want to use. This is very different from giving power to the government - or worse still to private corporations to block anything on the net. Your CP example is an exception because there is >99% disapproval of CP (at least in public). That does not hold for other things.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Your CP example is an exception because there is >99% disapproval of CP (at least in public). That does not hold for other things.

            Both child porn and infringing content are illegal. The difference is merely the level of support for restriction. Thanks for clearing that up. The core of your objection is that copyright should not be respected.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I bet copyright would be respected more if it didn't last so damn long. It's weird how the rights of the dead can outstrip the rights of the living.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I will respect your copyright when you respect mine. Under SOPA, only the copyrights of those with large lobbying budgets and teams of lawyers will have their copyrights respected.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Both child porn and infringing content are illegal."

              Except one is a criminal act with severe and lasting malicious effects on the victim. The other is a civil offence with no proven lasting damage, and various studies have shown that in fact "piracy" can have a positive effect.

              "The difference is merely the level of support for restriction."

              I'm glad I don't live in your twisted universe where these are even remotely equal in any other way. Then again, child porn is the refuge of the moron in cases where they can't just say "Hitler", so I don't expect you to have the intellect to understand.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Kevin H (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:08am

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

                If they get their way we will all have to live in their twisted universe.

                 

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

              •  
                identicon
                Call me Al, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:09am

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

                This is one of those aspects which is always troubling. Laws should exist for the good of society. That is why they were created. However, in some respects they have become twisted in on themselves so that the law must be obeyed without considering whether it is actually good for the society.

                You only need to look at the outcry whenever child pornography is mentioned to understand that as far as the members of most societies are concerned that is still a bad thing and should still be illegal.

                When you look at the opposite of this, the casual contempt by a significant proportion of the population to current copyright laws you should realise that it is time to consider whether those laws are in fact for the benefit of society or whether they should be re-evaluated in respect to recent technological and societal changes.

                I guess what I'm trying to get at is in a free society (which we should all aspire to) laws only exist because society allows them and to a degree agrees with them. Once we don't agree with them then they should be questioned and, where necessary, abandoned.

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:15am

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

                  "When you look at the opposite of this, the casual contempt by a significant proportion of the population to current copyright laws you should realise that it is time to consider whether those laws are in fact for the benefit of society or whether they should be re-evaluated in respect to recent technological and societal changes."

                  A significant portion of society jaywalks, many on a regular basis. Yet, plenty of people are injured or killed while jaywalking every year. While a significant proportion of society holds these laws in casual contempt, I for one am glad they are on the books, and applaud when they are enforced. Sometimes a significant proportion of society isn't able to see what is good for it in the long run.

                  It's sort of why we have the "legalize pot" movements. Significant numbers of people are worried about getting something for themselves, and aren't considering the implications on society as a whole.

                  My idea: repeal SOPA, repeal DMCA, and enforce what were the existing copyright laws. Guess what? All those websites and "mashups" you are all worried about would still be illegal.

                   

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:17am

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

                    How is collage illegal?

                     

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

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

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

                    Wow, so you can clone dead people and bring them back to life?

                    One process duplicates, the other is irreversiblew.

                     

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:37am

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

                    My idea: repeal SOPA, repeal DMCA, and enforce what were the existing copyright laws.

                    Sounds like a good start to me! Throw the Bridgeport v. Dimension ruling and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act on the chopping block too, and I'd say we're well on our way towards restoring sense to copyright law.

                     

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

                    •  
                      icon
                      The eejit (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:43am

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

                      Well, some sense. I wouldn't call it complete sense, but hey, if wishes were fishes, we'd never need the Internet.

                       

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

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

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

                    "Sometimes a significant proportion of society isn't able to see what is good for it in the long run."

                    But you can. Got it.

                    "It's sort of why we have the "legalize pot" movements. Significant numbers of people are worried about getting something for themselves, and aren't considering the implications on society as a whole."

                    Actually, the serious legalization arguments that I hear are all centered around improving the implications on society as a whole. Agree or disagree with those arguments all you want, but the implications are certainly being considered.

                    "Guess what? All those websites and "mashups" you are all worried about would still be illegal."

                    And without the severe damage SOPA et al causes to society! I agree with your proposal. It would be a far superior option to the SOPA path.

                     

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

                  •  
                    icon
                    nasch (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:41pm

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


                    It's sort of why we have the "legalize pot" movements. Significant numbers of people are worried about getting something for themselves, and aren't considering the implications on society as a whole.


                    Personally I'm in favor of legalizing many drugs and scaling back copyright infringement, but not in favor of either doing drugs or pirating stuff. I hold my positions because of the implications for society, not because I "want to get something for myself". I'm sure I'm not alone.

                     

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

            •  
              identicon
              Loki, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Both child porn and infringing content are illegal. The difference is merely the level of support for restriction.

              Prohibition made alcohol illegal, it did nothing to stop people from drinking (despite often rather high penalties.

              Pot is illegal, it does nothing to stop pot consumption (despite often rather high penalties - hell in some cases pot gets you more jail time than murder).

              Jaywalking is still technically illegal in most areas. Oral/anal sex is still illegal in places.

              Cigarettes could be made illegal tomorrow (they are already massively restricted in most places, and only the massive lobby arms of Phillip Morris and related companies have kept them from being outlawed altogether) and it will do nothing to stop people from smoking.

              What is technically illegal and what the majority of people consider morally acceptable are two entirely different things.

              The simple reality is this: your chances of stopping file sharing are about the same as your chances of stopping marijuana use. Considering pot use is still at least as prevalent, and perhaps more so, than file sharing, and has been outlawed for a lot longer (with much harsher punishments) your chances sit somewhere around zero.

              The core of your objection is that copyright should not be respected.

              Copyright, if left in its originally intended form of a short term, temporary incentive, was by and large respected. And rightfully so.

              Copyright, in its current form, is about as worthy of respect as a pyramid scheme. In fact, to some people, current copyright structure doesn't look (or behave) all that different from a typical ponzi scheme.

              The reality is this: the more copyright extensions Disney and their kind push through Congress, the more DCMA's, ACTA's, SOPA's, PIPA's thye ram through Congress, may "strengthen" copyright from a legal standpoint. From a societal standpoint, however, is simply dilutes the integrity of copyright from the moral standpoint of most people.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Trails (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Equating child porn to copyright infringement isn't just intellectually dishonest, it's morally dishonest.

              It's insulting to equate the sexual abuse of children, and distribution of imagery of such, to downloading movies over bitorrent. It's insulting to any reasonable human being. It's insulting to anyone with compassion or a shred of morality.

              I know you're using it as a polemic, to try to garner support for your paymasters unwilling to adapt, but it makes you a morally bankrupt shill, slinging bullshit for a buck instead of contributing to society.

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:24am

          Re: Re: Re:

          His point still stands, spam and malware prevention are done at the behest of the customers of the ISP, not some third party that wants to control what content ISP customers can and cannot have access to. The situations are entirely different.

          Child porn is the closest you can come to ISPs participating in the interdiction of content and I think you'll find that it's a positively laughable comparison with copyrighted content. Censorship is censorship no matter what is being censored and the only reason censorship is tolerated in the case of child porn is because society finds it so abhorrent. Not so with copyright and trademark violation which, in many cases, isn't even a crime. Furthermore the censorship of child porn is done at the behest of the government which is ostensibly working by and for the people. Again, not so with copyright and trademark violation cases under SOPA which would be done at the behest of a non-government third party.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            His point still stands, spam and malware prevention are done at the behest of the customers of the ISP, not some third party that wants to control what content ISP customers can and cannot have access to. The situations are entirely different.

            ISP proactively filter for spam and malware. It's simply untrue that they only react to consumer complaints.

            Child porn is the closest you can come to ISPs participating in the interdiction of content and I think you'll find that it's a positively laughable comparison with copyrighted content. Censorship is censorship no matter what is being censored and the only reason censorship is tolerated in the case of child porn is because society finds it so abhorrent.

            Both child porn and infringing content are unlawful. You abhor child porn but covet free, copyrighted content. The law is still the law, and that's what you have the problem with.

            Not so with copyright and trademark violation which, in many cases, isn't even a crime.

            Which in many cases is and generally at least a civil infraction.

            Furthermore the censorship of child porn is done at the behest of the government which is ostensibly working by and for the people.

            Censoring of child porn is at the behest of the government, but that behest is in the form of a law. And is no different that the law covering infringing content.

            Again, not so with copyright and trademark violation cases under SOPA which would be done at the behest of a non-government third party.

            Try reading the bill. Only DoJ can act to block infringing sites, not a non-government third party.

             

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The same DoJ that allowed this happen?

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

              By any means necessary, am I right?

               

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

            •  
              icon
              E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I think you have completely missed the point on spam and malware. Either that or you feigning ignorance to protect your position.

              The reason ISPs and mail servers install spam blocking software on email accounts is because of market pressures to do so. In the early days of email, spam was rife on everyone's account. So those providing email services responded to customer demand for less spam by creating and installing software that detects and blocks spam. They did this because of market pressure from email users.

              You can continue to pretend that it was not a public demand all you want, but you will continue to be wrong in ever respect.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "ISP proactively filter for spam and malware. It's simply untrue that they only react to consumer complaints."

              Why do you think the filters were put into place in the first place, dumbass? (hint: it's to do with customer demand). Also, last time I checked, I'm free to choose an ISP that doesn't offer these, or request that my ISP disable them for my account. I'm not forced to use those services if I don't wish to.

              "You abhor child porn but covet free, copyrighted content"

              Yes, God forbid that someone would have a different moral standard applied to the potential (but unproven) loss of a sale and the rape of a child. You people have nowhere you won't sink to defend your corporations, will you?

              "And is no different that the law covering infringing content."

              Ignorance and plain stupidity are not virtues.

              "Only DoJ can act to block infringing sites, not a non-government third party."

              ...and the DoJ have proven themselves to be in the pockets of which party, exactly? They've proven it's not the consumer.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Colin, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Censoring of child porn is at the behest of the government, but that behest is in the form of a law. And is no different that the law covering infringing content.

              Can we start a "Wall of Shame" thing here where we can keep track of absurd (and, in this case, sickening) quotes?

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 2:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "ISP proactively filter for spam and malware."

              Yes, they do this, at their customer's request. I've never seen an ISP that forces such filter on their customers. And I would have noticed, because I always turn those filters off.

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Since I haven't used an ISP provided email account since 1999 or 2000, I can safely szay no ISP has ever participated in blocking spam for me.

          That being said, spam filtering is turned on at my request on all of the web based accounts I've ever used.

          Oh, and its never been the ISP that stopped me from surfing to a phishing site, that's been google, if I've everbeen stopped, or my selfinstalled antivirus/etc program.

          So, I'm not wrong. I'm actually correct as the impliction is these are driven by consumer demad, not mandated by the goverment.


          And what part of your "this is spam" doesn't back up exactly what I'm saying? Do you even know how spam filters work? You know, when I click "this is spam" google is giving me the option, not wresting it from my hands.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:


          They all can be interdicted at the ISP level.


          Any communication could be interdicted at the ISP level.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:41am

      Re:

      Won't someone please think of the hacker pirate terrorist paedophile Mafiya-running children?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:54am

      Re:

      Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music.

      Except that no service will be willing to host it for fear of being cut off from revenue streams because of a SOPA claim, or the chance that even if he DOES get it up, a competitor could take it down with a SOPA claim. The thresholds written in to the law are VERY low, and the 'penalties' for abuse are weak or absent.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      demented, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:17am

      Re:

      "Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music"

      Nothing but an anonymous source (later traced to UMG) insisting that he TOTALLY ripped off a song by another artist, and the music industry's government cronies immediately shutting him down, fining him and putting him in jail.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:18am

        Re: Re:

        The issue is if he in fact did rip off another song (or sample someone else, example), then he is breaking the law. Forget SOPA, forget DMCA, he is breaking the existing copyright law.

        You guys are upset that the law is going to move closer to the speed of the internet, effectively getting rid of the buffer time between action and reaction. Suck it up, the gravy train is pulling into the last station.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If we're forgetting SOPA and the DMCA, can we forget Bridgeport v. Dimension? Because that was the ruling that made short samples illegal. And that was in 2005 - seven years after the DMCA.

          Still want your nostalgic copyright of yesteryear? Thanks - I'll go back to freely sampling whatever I want.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Trails (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The issue is whether or not that accusation is prove in an adversarial hearing before the gov't applies dire consequences to the accused. You know, due process?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Rikuo (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, let's jail the Axis of Awesome. They completely ripped off all the musicians in their 4 Chord song...but let's not stop there! Since those musicians clearly had the same 4 chords, let's jail them all!

          So WHAT if I use someone else's content? The 4 chord song is a PERFECT example of a piece of art that is greater than the sum of its parts. What about Tolkien, called the Grandfather of Modern Fantasy? He wrote the Hobbit, which is basically a rip off of the legend of Beowulf (both feature as major plot points a dragon who rests on a giant pile of treasure, both dragons notice immediately when a single piece of treasure is stolen and both dragons go apeshit because of it). Yeah, let's jail Tolkien for his remix! Pack him in jail, forget about the massive contribution he made to fantasy literature.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 2:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "You guys are upset that the law is going to move closer to the speed of the internet,"

          No, I am upset because SOPA will be actively harming me when I am not engaging in any forbidden activity at all, while simultaneously having little impact on copyright infringers.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Trails (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:55am

      Re:

      "Well, it's not unreasonable for the owners of the infrastructure to have some say over its use is it?"

      Agreed, and it's appaling how the owners of the internet infrastructure have been ignored udring the SOPA process. I'm glad you agree.

      " I don't think halting spam, malware, child porn, infringing content and counterfeit medication is tyrannical. "
      Agreed! Aside, you got conflation and false dichotomy in that statement, but couldn't you have worked in an appeal to authority or hasty generalization for the logical fallacy trifecta?

      "Nor do the laws the currently govern civil society magically evaporate in the Internet space."
      Yeah, right, cause no one has ever been sued because of soemthing they did online, and this needs to stop. The days of piracy on the high seas of the wild west information superhighway are at an end!

      "Nothing in SOPA will prevent this artist from distributing his music."
      Well, ok, almost nothing. Sure it will be used to kill up and coming distribution platforms, but dan bull can always mortgage his future to sign a deal with a label who will then rip him off on residuals, so he's not, technically speaking, "stopped".

      "And perhaps if he ever gets to the level where people are wiling to pay for his music, his rights will be protected and others will be prevented from profiting from his creativity."
      Seriously, who cares what Dan Bull thinks anyways, since he never makes any money from his music...

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re:

        Sent him 20 quid...can his rights be protected now? Or must he get on his knees and beg for his "rights"? Oh wait, at that point, they aren't rights, they're government granted privileges.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:36pm

      Re:

      He wont be able to distribute his art online anywhere if they close down the sites he distributes on. Ok he could set up his own website and upload them there but he cant afford marketing campaigns to get people to visit it. If they close down youtube and other such sites the little guys lose out far much more then they would if someone copies there music.

      Look at MC Lars who openly states that music should be free he makes it clear that people and download his songs and pass them around because that spreads his names and increases his fanbase so when a tour rolls bys more people go and buy his t shirts.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:22am

    Grifters for every one, plus a side order of freetards with pirates on top.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 6:49am

    I am creative enough to make things from scratch and to make tributes to things myself, i also I want the right to use other peoples stuff to do stuff within fair use, creative commons, licenced stuff etc.

    :D

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:02am

    Everyone in the world is watching the drama unfold in the US.
    The US is pushing hard to get similar laws into the EU and is succeeding. The ACTA agreement is kept secret on request of the US.

    The real scary thing is that the US is a major power not some backwater island.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

      Re:

      "The real scary thing is that the US is a major power not some backwater island."

      Give it time. Given the state of the nation in terms of government corruption, corporate power, and economic self-mutilation, the US won't be a major power for too much longer.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Bryan O'Doyle, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      Congress will change that in a right hurry! for a few hundred grand apiece, quit complaining and be patient.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:06am

    T_T. SOPA is going to be th bestist ever, i can foresee plain sailing once this passes. :D

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:12am

    " I can see he robbed it from someone else's comment made on another forum in 2005! "

    Greg has a vested interest in the health of the entertainment
    machines.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:28am

    Yes fools, I used existing words, but I did cut parts out of someone else's book.

    Please, you guys are great.

    :D

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:42am

    I am always quite pleased when I see a lot of children becoming involved in political issues.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Alex Moulin, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:50am

    Protection, huh...

    The only reason why this law is coming through is not to protect the artist but the copyright system. They are trying to keep alive this dinosaur of a system, to keep the money flowing in. And one of the threats to this system is people like Dan Bull that can survive without them. Put an end to competition and keep the money coming in, that's their real plan...

     

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

  •  
    icon
    jakerome (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    This idea was stolen from me!!!

    I'm totally suing for copyright infringement, because I'm clearly the first person who ever had this idea.

    Oh, and watch the video. It's awesome & uplifting. It's my daily affirmation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMZMdz9ww2I

    Follow-up is folks in the video chipped in $450 and Pacdog just bought a new DSLR. W00T!

    Watch the video.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    dan'sdad, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:50pm

    It's great to see Dan's words/music/vision etc., has got you all talking/tapping. I don't pretend to understand all the points raised (partly because I'm in the good old UK) but I certainly believe in freedom.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    dan'sdad, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 5:51pm

    THAT'SMYELOQUENTBOY

    It's great to see Dan's words/music/vision etc., has got you all talking/tapping. I don't pretend to understand all the points raised (partly because I'm in the good old UK) but I certainly believe in freedom.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 9:12pm

    Fully inspired. Join the debate at http://www.sopacabana.com

     

    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