Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley... And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It

from the there-is-only-one-answer-and-it-is-sopa dept

Not this again. Ever since SOPA/PIPA were shelved, we've been hearing from MPAA and RIAA officials about how important it is that they "sit down and meet" with "the opposition." Part of the problem is that they still can't figure out who the opposition really was. They usually blame Google. And sometimes Wikipedia. We keep hearing these requests to work together, but when people take them up on the offer and agree to meet... they seem to chicken out. Another big part of the problem is assuming that the only answer to the challenges they're facing is more legislation... but that's clearly not true.

Either way, a news report making the rounds says that Chris Dodd has "extended an olive branch" to the tech community with a speech he just gave. Already, that's framing this discussion incorrectly. Folks in Silicon Valley have been plenty happy to meet for many, many months. No "olive branch" needed. The MPAA and RIAA done everything to keep the tech industry from the table for nearly all of the SOPA debate. Even after everything happened, folks in Silicon Valley have made it clear that they're happy to meet and discuss stuff with Hollywood. It's just that many of them would like it to be "open." I've heard from a few different folks where "feelers were put out" to see if they wanted to take part in some secretive backroom "negotiations" -- but when they requested more open proceedings, the MPAA/RIAA guys insisted that was a deal breaker.

But really, what you see in this report isn't an olive branch, it's a baseball bat, where Chris Dodd talks up all the opportunities there are, and then starts wacking away at evil pirates destroying all.
MPAA Chief Chris Dodd made a peace overture to Silicon Valley Wednesday, telling an audience that "Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet."

But he also made clear the legislative battle against piracy wasn't over, maintaining that "a strong system of copyright protection for online content is critical to the continued success of the flourishing Internet marketplace."
Except, that's not clear at all. A strong system of content protection has had nothing to do with the current success of the "flourishing internet marketplace." And putting even more protectionism in place only seems likely to make things worse, and drive more people underground. To say that it's critical to the success of the internet seems really preposterous considering how little evidence there is that copyright really plays a major issue here.

The real problem here is that Dodd still continues to refuse to define the problem correctly. He still assumes (or publicly proclaims) that the answer is content protection. A truly open conversation wouldn't start with such assumptions, but would do more to establish a framework and details. And then you get things like this:
Speaking to the Atlanta Press Club on Wednesday, Dodd said that "nearly one-quarter of all global Internet traffic is copyright theft. And at the heart of the problem is the proliferation of parasitic foreign rogue sites whose sole purpose is to facilitate, and profit from, the theft of international property."
Of course, as has also been pointed out, this "one-quarter of all global Internet traffic" bit is misleading, because it's counting all sorts of things that might not be infringing. But, more to the point, Netflix alone appears to use up about approximately the same amount of bandwidth. And what that suggests is that the problem isn't that big. If you converted everyone who he's talking about to Netflix... you'd just have another Netflix. That's a decent-sized company, but nothing miraculous. It just looks big because everyone's focused on the wrong numbers -- such as the byte size of traffic, rather than what's actually being shared and why.
"We cannot draw up a business model that accounts for the wholesale theft of our product," he said. "It's true for pharmacies. It's true for the automobile industry. It's true for software developers. And it's true for us."
Of course, once again, he's misusing the term "theft," which is pretty disappointing and again suggests the lack of a real "olive branch" here. But, furthermore, this statement is also plainly wrong. What he's arguing is that companies can't compete with free. But, er... plenty of "copyright" businesses do exactly that. One need look no further than the open source community. There, Dodd would discover that there have been some very large companies that built on top of products that the company can't lock down, and that versions of those products will be available for free. And many open source companies have done well -- even as they have to compete with free versions of identical products. They've built great business models. To say that Dodd himself (or the studios) "cannot draw up a business model" that deals with the market situation is a statement on Dodd and the industry -- not on the possibility of such business models. Of course, there are more and more people discovering business models that work... but rather than let that happen, Dodd is demanding a law?

And, really, it comes back to this again: this isn't an olive branch. Dodd isn't seeking input from those who understand these issues. He's pretending to offer an olive branch to get some "negotiations" started, where they won't listen or take the time to understand the real issue. Instead, they'll just beat everyone over the head with the branch and insist that their ridiculously bad plans to expand copyright enforcement are the only way to go.
He said that "copyright legislation helped to create the Internet of today -- not to mention providing companies like Apple with the incentive to -- as they say -- think different, and to think big."
This part is just intellectually dishonest. Very little of the success of the internet today had anything to do with copyright law. In fact, large parts of the success of the internet were due to exceptions to copyright law, such as those from the open source community.
"The coalition supporting a crackdown on ... criminal sites includes companies large and small who produce movies, TV shows, music, software, photography, prescription drugs, consumer electronics -- everyone from Gibson Guitars to the Ultimate Fighting Championship."
Um, sounds like Dodd's talking points need a refresh. Gibson Guitar dropped its support of SOPA...
"If you believe that freedom of speech does not imply, and the ability to innovate does not require, a license to steal, if you believe that the men and women who work hard to make films and TV shows deserve to be fairly compensated ... I invite you to join this coalition and help us move towards a solution to this problem."
See, that's not an olive branch at all. That's just flat out misrepresenting the position of those who opposed SOPA. No one says that there's a "license to steal" or that people should be allowed to break the law willy nilly. Nor is anyone saying that those who "work hard" shouldn't be compensated. There are tons of laws on the books already -- many of which are already being overaggressively enforced. We're saying that there are existing ways to deal with these issues that don't have the collateral damage that a SOPA or PIPA would have -- by not involving legislation at all, but letting the market figure things out, as it's already been doing.

Again, if Dodd wants to meet and put forth a real olive branch, he should try not attacking those he's supposedly reaching out to or misrepresenting their position. Otherwise it's tough to see much sincerity there...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:14am

    You forget, Mike. Mr Dodd is a luddite moron with less knowledge of how the internet and digital age actually works then a cat thats been run over by a tank.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    TDR, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:18am

    How do you know if something's not true? If Chris Dodd said it.

    Anyway, when are guys like him going to learn that they can't fool us anymore, that their tricks of speech are always going to get laid out and exposed for all to see?

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:19am

    "sounds like Dodd's talking points need a refresh. Gibson Guitar dropped its support of SOPA..."

    Many companies did, after they saw the amount of crap Godaddy got about it. The vocal minority tries to shut down the free speech rights of everyone else. "Agree with us or suffer!"

    Free speech - only for those who think they are right.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Re:

    The vocal minority tries to shut down the free speech rights of everyone else. "Agree with us or suffer!" Free speech - only for those who think they are right.

    Wait so, SOPA/PIPA supporters don't think they are right?

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Rachel Keslensky, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Re:

    The cat is probably better liked on the internet, too.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Re:

    Many companies did, after they saw the amount of crap Godaddy got about it. The vocal minority tries to shut down the free speech rights of everyone else. "Agree with us or suffer!"

    [Citation Needed]

    The vocal minority, in this case, is the gatekeepers who try to shut down the free speech rights of everyone else...right? Otherwise this clearly doesn't make much sense, because nobody else is complaining about their free speech rights being trampled on.

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re:

    The cat, at least, could make for a funny picture before it got ran over.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re:

    As always, TAM has literally zero understanding of what "free speech" is.

    Shocking.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re:

    You can search techdirt to see what Godaddy got. Most of the SOPA dropouts occurred after those attacks started.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:26am

    Re:

    "Free speech - only for those who have all the money."

    Yeah, that's about it, too.

    Listen, ac, Copyright, in its present form, is about LIMITING Free Speech.

    Why do you think no one likes it?

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:27am

    Re:

    There you go again on your whole "Godaddy's free speech rights were violated" crap. Their rights were not violated. They were free to continue supporting SOPA if they wanted. They would have just lost some business over it as their customers disagreed with them. They weighed the options and made their choice. They were not forced to do anything. No one is entitled to customers. No one is required to do business with a company they disagree with.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Godaddy had a bunch of its customers tell them they weren't going to do business with them because of its SOPA stance. That sounds like the free markets at work there. Not censorship.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re:

    Agreed...every time Chris Dodd speaks, a lolcat dies.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re:

    " They were free to continue supporting SOPA if they wanted. They would have just lost some business over it as their customers disagreed with them."

    Here's the thing: They changed their political stand to appease the noisy group, because the other side wasn't going punish them for changing their view.

    They changed their views not because their views changed, but because an unruly mob was doing a digital beatdown on them.

    The first step to eliminating free speech is to make having an opposite opinion too expensive or too painful to maintain - even if you believe it.

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re:

    The sad thing is...I saw the trailer for the new Syndicate game a few days ago...of a world where corporations make the law...and I thought that with all the 'Chris dodd's' and copyright-happy polititians who do whatever hollywood says, that it may be closer then it appears.

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:35am

    Re:

    you forget...this is Chris Dodd we're talking about.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re:

    Chris Dodd is a liar and an asshole simply put !!!
    My closest friend owns a high end professional gear Audio Company and he sells gear to Hollywood, ETC.
    Two nights ago we were hanging out so I showed him Black Mirror Episode One and then I showed him some Anonymous Videos off youtube.I asked him what he thought of the Internet Censorship & RIAA/MPAA.
    He said that the whole Industry pretty much missed the boat and that is why they hate the Internet.They screwed up and dicked over people and now he and others like him suffer because of the suits who are a bunch of bozos.
    They could of competed offering a decent product with no DRM but instead they just try and Control stuff more and more.He is not happy at their decisions.He is a business owner.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:38am

    Can google or wikipedia or whoever goes to the table ('cause it won't be the public, let's just let that hope die already) put the terms "theft, stealing, piracy, etc..." on the chopping block as immediate deal breakers?

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re:

    Your friend sounds like he is sensible. He should be leading the MPAA instead of Chris Dodd

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And once again: you are an idiot.

    Free speech is not "free speech without consequences." Get over it.

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Most of the SOPA dropouts occurred after those attacks started.

    And yet according to what was said on Techdirt, Godaddy gained a net positive effect. Smaller than they could have if they hadn't put the foot in their mouth and shown support for such a crappy bill...

    I believe this is the very definition of free-speech. If I don't like you -- I certainly don't have to buy what you are selling and I can be as vocal as I want to about it. Me being vocal is in no way restricting your freedom of speech.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Matt T. (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    One more time, with feeling:
    "Free speech" is not short for "consequence-free speech".

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, this is amazing.

    So, by your rather odd definition of what eliminating free speech means, then there could never be political change, reform, or progress. There could never be meaningful political action. There could never be meaningful political speech, as doing any of that would constitute censorship.

    Nobody was trying to shut GoDaddy up. People were arguing with them, and some were deciding they couldn't support GoDaddy's actions with their business. That's freedom in action right there.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:43am

    In fact, large parts of the success of the internet were due to exceptions to copyright law, such as those from the open source community.

    Can you say Apache Web Server?

    Sometimes I wonder what our internet would look like if all we had was propriety software from Novell or Microsoft (or whomever)

     

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

  25.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Citizens exercising free speech rights cannot, by definition, do anything that impinges on the free speech rights of others. It's just not possible. That's the entire point of free speech. A government can curtail your free speech - another citizen cannot.

    They changed their views not because their views changed, but because an unruly mob was doing a digital beatdown on them.

    No, they changed their view because they are a business, and their customers wanted them to. It doesn't matter if you characterize them as an unruly mob or as a well-educated request, or as voodoo priests for that matter - it's not a free speech issue. In fact, it's exemplary of what free speech permits.

    GoDaddy and every other company is completely free to take whatever stance they want. Their freedom was never limited in any way. All they did was listen to their customers, and they had every right to ignore them, too.

     

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

  26.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Re:

    Actually, I'd keep them in, and have all reference to IP changed to "culture theft". See how interesting that would be for those at the table.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    GeneralEmergency (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    .

    "They changed their views not because their views changed, but because an unruly mob was doing a digital beatdown on them."

    No. Wrong.

    Now follow this -carefully- you intransigent clod...

    They changed their views because their CUSTOMERS were doing a RIGHTLY DESERVED beatdown on them.

    When your CUSTOMERS demand compliance, you either comply -OR- you go out of business.

    No amount of political toasting can obscure which side your bread is buttered on.

    .

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:47am

    "Private" Backroom Meeting

    I think they should take them up on it and let them think it won't be public but then just stream cast the entire thing without telling them beforehand.

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I saw the trailer for the new Syndicate game a few days ago

    OOOOOHHHHHH! Yippee. Just a couple days ago I was thinking about how cool it would be if GOG bought the rights to distribute the original game. I might have to break my current blockade on the video game industry to buy the new Syndicate, but only if it is DRM free.

    That game rocked!

    If the GOG guys are reading this -- Syndicate (Bullfrog) was one of the most awesome games I'd love to see GOG distribute in the future.

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:49am

    Re: "Private" Backroom Meeting

    I like your thinking...if only I knew where to send the suggestion

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:49am

    Didn't we petition the president for Chris Dodd to be arrested and put on trial for attempting to bribe the president? Why is he still walking around free and giving speeches? Put this bum in prison already.

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The MPAA exists only to maintain its own existence. Which is the real problem here. That and the whole "we need people as clueless about technology as we are, to lobby for us about technology" thing.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO SAY!!!

     

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

  34.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The first step to eliminating free speech is to make having an opposite opinion too expensive or too painful to maintain - even if you believe it.

    This is a funny thing to say. In reality, the first step to eliminating free speech is expecting people to shut up just because their opinions might be expensive or painful for someone else.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:50am

    3 points, really

    1) was Dodd born a complete prat with the sense of a rocking horse, or did he have to take lessons?

    2) trouble with this and similar articles is that they are believed by those in power, not because there is truth in the article but because they choose not to believe anything else

    3) there is never a mainstream article (press or TV) debunking what is said and actually stating the alternative

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What a sad day we live in when unhappy customers who are ready to take their business elsewhere is the same thing as an "unruly mob". What a sad day when the loss of business is the equivalent of a "beatdown".

    You are an idiot if you think that. In a free market we are free to choose which businesses we want to deal with. We are free to air our grievances with those businesses. We are free to accept change from those businesses or not.

    This is not censorship. This is business.

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    PlagueSD (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:52am

    Re:

    Sometimes I wonder what our internet would look like if all we had was propriety software from Novell or Microsoft (or whomever)


    If the internet was running on Microsoft software, it would be crashing every few days. Also, every time something was changed or updated, we'd have to reboot the WHOLE internet.

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re:

    He and the "Content Industry" will always focus on large companies. They can't wrap their heads around what went on and continues to online, so lets all keep quiet and not tell them. Shhh!!!

    After all, nobody expects the french revolution.

     

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

  39.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What I mean is...it shows a world where corporations ARE the government...you know...lie what the MPAA and RIAA would love to exist so they could censor the net as much as they want

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:01am

    Re:

    True...but I don;t think he'll find it as easy to bribe now.

    I believe rule one of political bribery is, written in 6 foot high letters of granite is: DON;T EVER ADMIT IT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION...even if the channel was Fox News.

    His capitol hill pals...the ones with brain cells will probably be trying to forget they know him.

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    Togashi (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:02am

    Re: "Private" Backroom Meeting

    Sadly, they could probably twist wiretapping laws to make that an offense. Even if they made sure to do it in a state where both parties didn't have to consent, it would be streamed to states where both do, which I'm sure would be claimed as good enough for prosecution.

     

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

  42.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re:

    If the entire internet ran on Micorsoft, the 404 pages would all be blue.

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:04am

    Re:

    Actually, he was born on the corner of Dumb st and Stump Ave.

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Don't get too excited, the new one is a 3d shooter =/.

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:06am

    Give and take

    I'm sure that many more people would be up to support SOPA/PIPA if copyrights were ratcheted back to 10 or 20 years maximum, and the statutory penalties were lowered substantially or eliminated completely so that the rightsholder would have show actual financial harm.

    We might all be ok with increased enforcement if the public domain didn't suffer so much. People deserve to be compensated for their work, but not in perpetuity throughout the known universe.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:09am

    Re:

    Just because you are free to say something doesn't mean you're not a jerk.

    Or is your reasoning part of the rules for the New Democracy (tm)? It's shocking -- and somewhat amusing -- to see how all these copyright lobbyists take our arguments and turn them right back on us. Unfortunately for them, people against more freedom-destroying legislation can actually argue their points, while their only argument seems to be, "You're wrong because you're against us".

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:11am

    Re:

    Points 2 and 3 are the most important.

    If the old school news is biased in favor of SOPA, and the Internet has all viewpoints about SOPA (including pro-SOPA AC's on TD) then the world will be divided into groups.

    Those opposed to SOPA who understand and use the internet, and understand SOPA. Those who have seen countless discussion of SOPA from both sides. Those who have seen the excesses and overreaches of the SOPA supporters.

    Those in favor of SOPA, who neither use nor understand the internet, and who have been spoonfed pro SOPA lies. More frightening is that these are probably the legislators receiving the corruption checks.

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:14am

    Re: Give and take

    That would be an interesting compromise.

     

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

  49.  
    icon
    Machin Shin (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re:

    You idiots really need to learn what free speech is. It is not "Free from consequences".

    Free speech is the freedom to say whatever you would like to say without being censored. No one censored GoDaddy. Other people voiced their opinion opposite of GoDaddy and GoDaddy had to accept the consequence of going against the wishes of their customers.

    SOPA on the other hand wanted to have the power to shut down web pages. This was taking away the persons ability to speak. That is a lot different than what happened to GoDaddy. No on shut down GoDaddy's homepage or told them they could not express their opinion.

     

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

  50.  
    icon
    Machin Shin (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:22am

    Re:

    I would also like to take this moment to say that GoDaddy is a company. Freedom of speech is given to the citizens not to companies. So even if we do go with your twisted logic the voice of the CITIZENS should outweigh that of a company.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    Sneeje (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So, you recommend doing business with those whose policies you disagree with? That's somehow subverting democracy?

    I don't think free speech or democracy means what you think it means.

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:26am

    Re:

    Unfortunately, the White House responded that they can't comment because it required a government action in a different branch.

    We tried putting up another petition, but unless it can 24,966 signatures within six days, it failed.

     

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

  53.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The first step to eliminating free speech is to make having an opposite opinion too expensive or too painful to maintain - even if you believe it.

    If you are going to give up speaking out on an issue because you are unpopular on lose some business over it then I would say that your heart in not really in it.

    Being discouraged from voicing an opinion because of financial loss is a very different thing from being censored.

     

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

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: "Private" Backroom Meeting

    Wiretapping would only apply to communications placed over telecommunications media that are federally regulated. Recording a face to face meeting couldn't be considered wiretapping.

     

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

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:28am

    Re:

    Sounds to me like millions of people exercised their right to free speech and it resulted in the vocal minority backing down once they realized they were outgunned.

    But of course, you wouldn't understand anything like that as you think that corporations bribing lawmakers into creating legislation that favors them counts as "free speech". Which is apparently what Mr Dodd still thinks is the correct way to approach this (btw how is it that this guy hasn't been investigated yet?)

    Now I just wonder as to what little rebuttal you'll throw in my direction that showcases both your lack of understanding about the issue while formatting the argument into a nice little ball of "NO U".

     

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

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re:

    bb..but companies and corporations are people! just like you and me!

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:30am

    Re: Give and take

    It'd also help if there was some law that penalized false accusations.

    Maybe call it the "Poetic Justice Clause."

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:30am

    MPAA Chief Chris Dodd made a peace overture to Silicon Valley Wednesday, telling an audience that "Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet."

    I read this. It didn't pass the laugh test.

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    WHAT?!

    First X-Com and now THIS??

     

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

  60.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Being discouraged from voicing an opinion because of financial loss is a very different thing from being censored.
    Unless of course that financial loss is being imposed by the government or anyone acting in authority.

     

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

  61.  
    icon
    Chris Brand (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:47am

    Hollywood is pro-Internet ?

    MPAA Chief Chris Dodd [told] an audience that "Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet."

    Hmmm. The phrase "actions speak louder than words" comes to mind. Or, of course "[citation needed]".

     

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

  62.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If the entire internet ran on Micorsoft, the 404 pages would all be blue.

    LOL. Could you imagine...every time you hit a 404 page you would have hold the power button down to restart your computer.

     

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

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:53am

    Re: Re:

    Or while he was getting run over:

    Teh in ma square!
    Chrushn' ma dessent!

     

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

  64.  
    identicon
    jackn2, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Cowards need someone to tell them what to say.

     

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

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    Retention/expansion of civil liberties and copyright are mutually exclusive. Any time someone attempts to restrict civil liberties so copyright can be expanded, you better bet that you'll get a lot of vocal opposition.

     

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

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It sounds like you have a problem with businesses being beholden to their customers for repeat business.

     

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

  67.  
    identicon
    jackn2, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:03pm

    Re:

    Or if all of our smartphones were controlled by one company. Hard to imagine

     

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

  68.  
    icon
    Traveller800 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Hollywood is pro-Internet ?

    Hollywood is pro-internet? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...I didnt know Chris dodd was a ameteur comedian cause that HAS to be a joke right there.

     

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

  69.  
    identicon
    jackn2, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:07pm

    If the industry can find a way to deliver their product, that is their problem, not society's.

     

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

  70.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Hollywood is pro-Internet ?

    One of my favourite authors wrote a rule that goes like this
    ""Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie."
    - Terry Goodkind, the Wizard's Fifth Rule in "Soul of the Fire"

     

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

  71.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What I mean is...it shows a world where corporations ARE the government...you know...lie what the MPAA and RIAA would love to exist so they could censor the net as much as they want

    Sorry, got your meaning...it fell by the way-side by my mental orgasm (oh, sh*t, sorry Mike, giving Germany more reasons to block us) of the game itself.

    However, I am not sure RIAA/MPAA would like to live in that world as much as they might. From what I remember (I have the original disks, should probably try loading it up again,) the companies hired thugs to come in and kill off the competition. I suspect the "freetards" like Google might be able to find more thugs who are willing to do it for free.

     

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

  72.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Don't get too excited, the new one is a 3d shooter =/.

    Ick. The old one was kinda a 3d shooter -- not Wolfenstein 3d shooter, but SimCity 3d shooter.

     

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

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:19pm

    "if you believe that the men and women who work hard to make films and TV shows deserve to be fairly compensated ..."

    Hollywood doesn't believe that for a minute.

    If it did, "Hollywood Bookkeeping" wouldn't show that even the top 10 movies of all time have yet to show a profit!

     

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

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The first step to eliminating free speech is to make having an opposite opinion too expensive or too painful to maintain - even if you believe it."

    It wasn't "too expensive", because it didn't cost them a cent.
    It simply wasn't profitable enough since potential customers refused to do business and current customers chose to leave.
    Now if they were being sued by, say a movie studio with deep pockets who could keep them tied up in expensive litigation, now THAT would be too expensive!

    As for "pain"...well if you can't take the heat, get out of the digital kitchen.

     

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

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    I think Mr. Dodd should just quit his job with the MPAA, and stick with things he understands, like mortgage fraud, and taking pay offs.

     

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

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re:

    I'll send it out to OWS tonight. 25k is easy.

     

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

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:40pm

    Re:

    Sorry, this is free markets in action. If you want someone to give you their money you really should be paying attention to what their telling you. If they tell you that if you continue a certain course of action they will stop spending their money with you, well it's up to you to make a decision.

    Think of it as free market research,...

     

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

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "GoDaddy and every other company is completely free to take whatever stance they want. Their freedom was never limited in any way. All they did was listen to their customers, and they had every right to ignore them, too."

    Again, should I type slowly? You seem to be having a problem even understanding your own logic.

    GoDaddy exercised their freedom, and got a beat down for it. In order to maintain their business when faced with this sort of bullying online, they changed their official opinion to appease those who where yelling and causing their business damage.

    They have two choices: Stick with your free speech and possibly lose your business, or CHANGE YOU OPINION, limit you free speech, and be part of the "good side".

    Basically, your first amendment rights to free speech end where they stop being about free speech, and start being about intimidating others to change their views to agree with you "or else".

    As an example, cross burning, even in a public location, when done to intimidate a person or group is not protected free speech. While I am not suggesting that what happened with Godaddy in any way matches up to this sort of thing, it is clear that intimidation is not protected free speech.

    You have the right not to do business with GoDaddy. You have the right to tell others why you are not doing business with go daddy. When you get to the point of intimidation (change your public opinion or we will ruin your business) you have crossed the line. At that point, it isn't much past mafia types demanding protection money.

     

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

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re:

    Pirates crying 'censorship!' and 'free speech!' is the new Godwin.

     

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

  80.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Funny, I don't recall anyone making any kind of threat toward Godaddy that exceded "I am taking my business elsewhere"

     

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

  81.  
    icon
    Tim K (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You have the right not to do business with GoDaddy. You have the right to tell others why you are not doing business with go daddy. When you get to the point of intimidation (change your public opinion or we will ruin your business) you have crossed the line.

    I'm missing the part where people said they'd ruin their business. Did people start showing up at their hq and try and break in or destroy their servers or interrupt their servers? No, I believe people just dropped their service, or chose to not to do business with GoDaddy and told others why they shouldn't do business with them

     

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

  82.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Once again, you have no idea what free speech means. It does not have anything to do with how well your business does.

    You have the right not to do business with GoDaddy. You have the right to tell others why you are not doing business with go daddy. When you get to the point of intimidation (change your public opinion or we will ruin your business) you have crossed the line.

    No, you haven't. Absolutely nothing that happened to GoDaddy was not a matter of individual, personal choice. Nobody forced anyone to stop doing business with them. They expressed their opinion, encouraged others, and made statements. They banded together to make their voice louder. They used consumer pressure to encourage a company to make a certain choice. All of that is the very LIFEBLOOD of free speech, and if you think otherwise, you have tragically missed the point.

    Do you honestly not get this? I mean... come on. It's not that complicated.

     

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

  83.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh and:

    should I type slowly

    YES! PLEASE! You are clearly typing and submitting these idiotic opinions before taking even ten seconds to think about them and realize how wrong they are.

     

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

  84.  
    icon
    byte^me (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I thought the phrase was "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

     

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

  85.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:01pm

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

    Apparently he thinks that the First Amendment should force people to continue doing business with a company no matter what they say or do, or how much those people don't want to deal with them anymore.

    Actually... that might explain why he is still hanging around Techdirt after all these years...

     

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

  86.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    After all, nobody expects the french revolution.

    I thought nobody expects the Spanis-

    I see what you did there.

    He and the "Content Industry" will always focus on large companies.
    In news I think we can all agree on, the **AAs are nothing more than a way to hide the fact that the major content corporations are acting like a cartel. There may not be outright price fixing, but I see this lobbying as nothing more than legacy business model fixing. Collusion to make sure that businesses with contemporary tech oriented models can't compete.

     

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

  87.  
    icon
    tracker1 (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:12pm

    s/french/internet/

    I think that it's really a lot like a war with the content industry. I have an Amazon Prime account, and pay for Netflix streaming as well... I'd gladly pay $50/month to access any content over a year old, when I want to access it. I'm not willing to pay $200+ a month for another hundred channels of content I mostly care nothing about, with none of the conveniences of streaming.

     

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

  88.  
    icon
    Tim K (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There may not be outright price fixing anymore
    FTFY

     

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

  89.  
    identicon
    Don, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:41pm

    hilarious

    Senator Orrin Hatch wants the Government to literally start blowing up hundreds of thousands of computers without due process. http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/

     

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

  90.  
    identicon
    Jacob Blaustein, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:44pm

    Dead

    Yeah the more this goes on, the less likely we'll see SOPA or PIPA again.

     

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

  91.  
    identicon
    jackn2, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:48pm

    Re: s/french/internet/

    I think that it's really a lot like a war with the LEGACY content industry

     

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

  92.  
    identicon
    jackn, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I am not a pirate, but I guess to you, a person is either a pirate or a legacy content producer.

    Real people, the masses, screaming censorship and free speech is the new reality. Get used to it.

     

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

  93.  
    identicon
    jackn, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I am not a pirate, but I guess to you, a person is either a pirate or a legacy content producer.

    Real people, the masses, screaming censorship and free speech is the new reality. Get used to it.

     

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

  94.  
    identicon
    jackn, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I am not a pirate, but I guess to you, a person is either a pirate or a legacy content producer.

    Real people, the masses, screaming censorship and free speech is the new reality. Get used to it.

     

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

  95.  
    identicon
    Andrew Magee, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Dead

    Which would suit me just fine.

     

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

  96.  
    icon
    dcee (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 4:51pm

    Re: Re:

    What the hell? Is it still cool to say so much uninformed things about Microsoft softwares? http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/web_server/all

    Only an uneducated fool can make a IIS server crash. Likewise, an uneducated fool can make an Apache server crash. The only difference: with Microsoft software, and idiot can actually use it.

     

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

  97.  
    icon
    dcee (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 4:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, and I might add: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-microsoftiis/all/all

    IIS is used on more high traffic sites than Apache...

     

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

  98.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 5:03pm

    I Think We Have To Wait Until They Run Out Of Money To Spend On Lawyers

    I don’t think they’ll really be willing to “listen to reason” until they’re all in bankruptcy court.

     

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

  99.  
    icon
    Al Bert (profile), Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 9:02pm

    Re: Dead

    Right. The more these jackasses breed public distrust and contempt, the more effort they will need to put into concealing actions taken to support their agenda. You're right. We might not see SOPA or the next threat -- until it's too late.

    That sounds so damn paranoid, but they're the ones playing offense here. Even if we stop them in their tracks, we haven't gained any ground. We've only narrowly avoided losing it.

     

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

  100.  
    identicon
    Michael, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 9:28pm

    Soon.

    All these dinosaurs will be dead. I sure hope we are grooming some v2.0 folks that aren't quite so stupid and crooked.

     

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

  101.  
    identicon
    AC, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    GoDaddy exercised their freedom. End of story. They are free to say what they want and run their business how they see fit.

    They didn't get beat down for it. What they got, were customers who did not agree with their points of view and what they stood for, and who used their rights as consumers to take their business elsewhere and voice their reasons for doing so.

    That others agreed with them and also took their business elsewhere, or avoided GoDaddy to begin with is not a crime or a violation of GoDaddy's right to free speech. Nor an abuse of the consumers'. It's the free market at work and free speech at it's finest.

    That GoDaddy decided to change what they were saying in an effort to stem the tide of customers leaving is their own thing. And was done entirely of their own free will. No one made them do anything. No one forced them to do anything. And you're seriously grasping at straws (or just flat out being an idiot) when you say they were "intimidated" into doing so.

    Basically, your first amendments right to free speech end when you go from speaking to ACTUALLY intimidating through genuine harm (usually of the physical variety). That is correct. But customers boycotting a company is NOT, nor will it ever be, a form of free speech violation/intimidation.

    Also, to say that you ARE NOT comparing what happened to GoDaddy with cross burning is a load of crock. If you weren't making the comparison, you wouldn't have even brought it up. But keeping that you said it in mind, along with what you've been saying, that boycotting or deciding to do business with companies that aren't pro-censorship, it suits you and your general attitude/stupidity in general.

    No one ruined GoDaddy's business though. GoDaddy did that on their own with their actions and statements. That people noticed them and said "oh heck no" is not intimidation (just repeating that, because eventually, you'll realize how stupid it is to say otherwise).

     

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

  102.  
    identicon
    Psychlohexane, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 11:28pm

    Masnick, you're kind of my hero.

     

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

  103.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2012 @ 12:17am

    Re:

    >The vocal minority tries to shut down the free speech rights of everyone else. "Agree with us or suffer!"

    Sounds like the RIAA railing against the rest of the Internet. So why aren't you calling them out for it?

     

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

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2012 @ 2:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Syndicate's already available on GOG, dude.

     

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

  105.  
    identicon
    Master Jo, Feb 24th, 2012 @ 3:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > IIS is used on more high traffic sites than Apache...

    One might challenge that, according to your own source:
    http://w3techs.com/technologies/cross/web_server/ranking

     

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

  106.  
    identicon
    Michael, Feb 24th, 2012 @ 6:38am

    If you want to know what effect any piece of legislation written up by the major corps will have on the internet, observe their behavior in real life: utter disregard and contempt for the general public, acting in secrecy and preventing (i.e. censoring) the public to voice dissent in an open platform. Such would be the internet under corporate rule.

     

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

  107.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Feb 24th, 2012 @ 7:29am

    Re:

    The vocal minority tries to shut down the free speech rights of everyone else.

    This is exactly what SOPA and PROTECT IP were. Good for Godaddy's customer base, who exercised their free speech rights and stood against it!

    I mean, that must be what you're saying. You couldn't possibly think a consumer boycott is shutting down free speech rights, but the Government "disappearing" websites is not.

    'Cause that would just be idiotic.

    Though, if you were sympathetic to the RIAA/MPAA, I could see how you could believe that lie. In their mind, they're the only ones who provide "speech," and everyone else is just providing "noise." So, any loss to their business would then be an "attack on free speech."

    Especially a consumer boycott... which, when you get down to it, is what file sharing really is.

     

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

  108.  
    identicon
    Batarang, Feb 24th, 2012 @ 9:32am

    Re: s/french/internet/

    I've said similar things. ~$100/month should get me all content worldwide (books, articles, movies, tv shows, music, etc.). As long as I am employed, I will pay for the rest of my life.

     

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

  109.  
    icon
    wvhillbilly (profile), Feb 24th, 2012 @ 9:49am

    Gibson Guitar?

    Chris Dodd on counterfeiting: "...everyone from Gibson Guitars to the Ultimate Fighting Championship."

    Umm... Gibson Guitars is counterfeiting its own guitars???

     

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

  110.  
    icon
    Dirkmaster (profile), Feb 24th, 2012 @ 1:43pm

    Re:

    "Didn't we petition the president for Chris Dodd to be arrested and put on trial for attempting to bribe the president? Why is he still walking around free and giving speeches? Put this bum in prison already."

    And the White House has already responded. "We Don't Do That" and now that petition isn't even listed on the site.

    Perhaps we should just keep doing it again and again until they get the message.

     

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

  111.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 24th, 2012 @ 6:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Syndicate's already available on GOG, dude.

    Wow, they just added it on Jan 17th, 2012. Awesome. Thanks.

     

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


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