Techdirt. Stories filed under "hyperbole"

Techdirt. Stories filed under "hyperbole" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "hyperbole"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Mon, 23 May 2011 09:56:31 PDT Universal Music: We Need PROTECT IP Because Musicians Are Dying! Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/15512514376/universal-music-we-need-protect-ip-because-musicians-are-dying.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/15512514376/universal-music-we-need-protect-ip-because-musicians-are-dying.shtml sent out a letter on behalf of MusicRightsNow -- a laughable astroturf group that pretends to support musicians, but is a front for major label and legacy industry interests, asking people to submit letters to Congress in support of a new law against online infringement. At the time, we had thought it was a push for a three strikes law, but it was really just pre-COICA posturing (showing, of course, that the major labels knew all about COICA before the rest of us did). Once COICA was out, Urie sent out another such letter, and followed it up with one more right before COICA was set to be up for a vote (before Ron Wyden thankfully blocked it).

With PROTECT IP being the reincarnation of COICA, it should be no surprise that Urie has sent out yet another such plea letter, asking people to alert their Congressional representatives of why they should support PROTECT IP. Just as with the past letters, if you follow the link in Urie's letter, it takes you to a website where the letter is static. There is no way to edit it. In fact, the site claims that the text is required. Yup. It's "required" that you leave the letter intact. There is no way to express your own opinion at all. You may only parrot Jim Urie and Universal Music's position on PROTECT IP.

Doesn't it seem somewhat ironic, for an industry that talks up the importance of individual creativity and not copying others, that it only wants you to copy the letter they've pre-written?

So what does the static letter say? After kicking off with a rather false offer to "compose message," when you can't do any composing, it offers the following required text:

My livelihood depends upon a healthy music industry – and that’s why I hope you will support S. 968, legislation to protect Intellectual Property and encourage action against online theft.

Lots of people's livelihood depends on a healthy music industry, but S. 968 doesn't do anything to create a healthy music industry. As plenty of studies have shown over and over again, there exists a very healthy music industry today -- more healthy than before the internet came along. What's unhealthy is the part of the business Urie is in charge of leading: the part that's about selling recordings. Just because Urie failed to lead Universal Music into the modern world, it doesn't mean we need a law designed to break the internet to cover up for his failings.

And, seriously, can we stop calling infringement theft?

The online theft of music is killing artists, singers, songwriters, musicians, retailers, production engineers and others. It is destroying jobs, dreams and careers. The music community is at risk, as is the unique culture of American music itself.

Yes. Read that again. He doesn't say that it's killing their careers (even though it's not). He literally says that it's KILLING THEM. Talk about ridiculous hyperbole. Even if they really just meant that it's killing their careers, this is flat out wrong. Over and over again we've shown that more and more people are making music and making money from music than ever before. The music community is not at risk and neither is the culture of American music. What's at risk is Jim Urie's job. For shame. Probably should have adapted to a changing market. Pleading to Congress by lying about dying musicians is a desperation play, but won't save your job, Jim.

Despite an astounding array of legal and convenient ways to obtain digital music today, online theft continues. Of course, music is just the “canary in the coal mine” – books, movies, television programs, games and software are suffering damage that will grow more profound if left unchecked.

And yet, there is no evidence that stopping infringement leads to more purchases. You know what would lead to more purchases? Adapting to a changing market. It's a shame, then, that Urie and Universal Music is unwilling to do so.

S. 968 would provide law enforcement with new tools to stop criminals engaged in piracy and counterfeiting online. I urge you to support this legislation and any other efforts designed to assist our nation’s creative community.

S.968 would provide law enforcement and Universal Music with new tools to stifle speech, attack innovations and generally hold back progress hopefully for long enough until Jim Urie can retire. What it won't do is stop "criminals." It certainly won't assist our nation's creative community. Our nation's creative community (the truly creative ones) have learned how to embrace new forms of distribution and new business models and will actually be held back by laws like this.

Anyway, we eagerly await the evidence Jim Urie has of musicians deaths from infringement.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> hyperbole-much? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110521/15512514376 Fri, 3 Dec 2010 18:03:00 PST Viacom Plays The Insane Hyperbole Card In Claiming YouTube Ruling Would 'Completely Destroy' Content Value Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101203/14363512120/viacom-plays-insane-hyperbole-card-claiming-youtube-ruling-would-completely-destroy-content-value.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101203/14363512120/viacom-plays-insane-hyperbole-card-claiming-youtube-ruling-would-completely-destroy-content-value.shtml now officially appealed its rather complete loss at the district court level concerning YouTube's liability for users' posting infringing works. What is a little surprising is the level of insane hyperbole Viacom chooses to use in its filing (included in its entirety after the jump) -- where it claims that if the ruling is allowed to stand it, would "completely destroy" the value of content:

If affirmed by this Court, that construction of Section 512(c) would radically transform the functioning of the copyright system and severely impair, if not completely destroy, the value of many copyrighted creations. It would immunize from copyright infringement liability even avowedly piratical Internet businesses.

To put it mildly, this is hogwash. First of all, it's exactly how the system has functioned since the DMCA came into being in 1998. If you see infringing content on a site, you issue a takedown and the site takes it down in order to keep its safe harbors. The idea that it would "completely destroy" the value of content makes no sense at all. First, you have to understand why it makes no sense that YouTube should be liable: it has absolutely no way of knowing, for certain, whether or not specific content is infringing. As it showed in the case, even Viacom itself had trouble figuring out what was infringing, and had sued YouTube over a bunch of videos that it had put on YouTube itself. How do you make YouTube responsible for determining such things when even the copyright holder can't figure it out? It makes no sense.

Second, the idea that the value of the work is "destroyed" again makes no sense. After all, the value of any particular content is intrinsic to the content and how any individual feels about it. The value of a piece of content doesn't change if someone puts it up on YouTube. Furthermore, YouTube quickly does remove content when it receives a takedown notice, so if Viacom is that concerned, it can send the takedowns. In fact, that's exactly what it did and the company complied. That's exactly what the law says it should do. On top of that, nothing in the DMCA's safe harbors immunizes those who actually upload the content, who are still very much liable for their own actions.

But the biggest evidence that Viacom's claims are complete and total hogwash is the simple fact that even after the ruling, there has been no "mass destruction" in value of content. As we've pointed out for years, the overall revenue for the entertainment industry continues to go up all this time -- though, perhaps less of it goes to the gatekeepers like Viacom. But those are normal market changes, not anything nefarious. Who knows how the appeals court will rule in the case, but Viacom seems to be going off the deep end with hyperbole in making its own case. They must be hoping that the judges don't do much thinking for themselves.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> get-real http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101203/14363512120 Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:14:43 PDT RIAA Claims That If COICA Isn't Passed, Americans Are 'Put At Risk' Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100928/23171111206/riaa-claims-that-if-coica-isn-t-passed-americans-are-put-at-risk.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100928/23171111206/riaa-claims-that-if-coica-isn-t-passed-americans-are-put-at-risk.shtml COICA, the online censorship bill that ignores history and appears to violate both the principles of the First Amendment and due process, a bunch of concerned citizens have been speaking out against the bill, and asking the Senate not to rush it through without at least holding hearings about the massive problems with the bill.

Considering the serious concerns raised by the bill, you would think that everyone would be fine with holding such hearings. But, of course, when you know damn well that the bill almost certainly isn't Consitutional and its sole purpose is to censor upstart competitors and technologies that threaten your business model, you probably are less thrilled about hearings. And, so, it should come as no surprise that, at the end of this National Journal article about the request for hearings, the RIAA makes one of its more ridiculous statements in a while (and that takes some doing):

"The answer from these self-styled public interest groups can't always be 'no.' Congressional and administration leaders have made it clear that doing nothing is no longer an option. If these groups have a better idea than the meaningful, bipartisan approach like the one put forward by Chairman Leahy, we welcome their ideas on how to insure that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish."

Of course, the answer isn't always "no," but the answer absolutely can and should be "no," when the proposal involves censoring websites, removing due process, and favoring certain legacy industries over new technologies.

But the really ridiculous part is the claim that, without this law, "foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish." Just what are these sites, and which Americans are "at risk" from them? So, let's see if the RIAA can tell us which Americans are put at risk by which site -- and I'm sorry, but your inability to adapt your business model to a changing market does not put you "at risk." So, once again, it's time for the RIAA to answer a straight question: which sites are putting Americans at risk, and how will this law protect them?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> um,-who-exactly? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100928/23171111206 Fri, 15 May 2009 10:22:00 PDT Criticizing Social Networks Leads To Wacked Out Hyperbole Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/1808394887.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/1808394887.shtml

First, there was the totally ridiculous claim that Facebook would give you cancer. Of course, that's just what the press release said. The actual research said no such thing.

Then there were the researchers who claimed that Facebook made girls depressed, but seemed unaware of the difference between correlation and causation.

Then there was the claim that the only people who used Twitter were losers who had no self-identity (this from a clinical psychologist) or massively insecure (from a cognitive neuroscientist). There was no reasoning behind those claims. They just didn't like Twitter. The same thing, of course, could be said about email. Or the telephone. Or the telegraph. Or letters. How dare people wish to communicate with others! Insecure bastards!

Next up was the pharmacology professor who claimed that Twitter and Facebook help infantilize our brains. Based on what evidence? Nothing more than a hunch and some incorrect assumptions. I'd argue that making stuff up is more likely to infantilize our brains than communicating with others.

Then there was the study that got tons of press about how students who used Facebook got worse grades than those who didn't. The problem there? Bad research methodology. Some more comprehensive research showed the original findings were total bunk.

And, now, the very latest, found via Mathew Ingram is some guy (who's name we won't even bother mentioning because he's simply trying to gain publicity to sell books on how to get noticed) claiming that Twitter causes brain damage. He had put out a press release claiming this (he's not a doctor or a scientist or anything -- just a "social media expert" who obviously shouldn't be hired for help with Twitter), but then pulled it down when someone who had a relative with brain damage complained. But he stuck by his complaints, none of which make much sense:

Twitter is little more than a slick microblog service, really nothing more than Facebook's status update feature, which I happen to think is better designed.

Er... no one said it was anything more than that. But it is actually quite different from Facebook's status update, mainly in the openness of Twitter. But that's fine. So he doesn't like it. Why does that mean it causes brain damage?

I don't want to follow Domino's pizza on Twitter. Sometimes I just want the pizza, you know?

I don't want to follow Domino's Pizza on Twitter either. So, you know what? I don't.

And I think Twitter teaches younger users the wrong values -- namely, that WHAT you say matters far less than how many "followers" you have.

Really? Then someone is using Twitter incorrectly. I never look at how many followers anyone has and I don't really care. All that matters to me in figuring out who I follow is if they have something interesting to say. In my experience, Twitter is exactly the opposite of what this guy claims. Perhaps his issue about numbers of users displays more about his own fears than Twitter.

And it is making us dumber: news anchors airing dumb, abbreviated opinions of 15-year-olds. Who cares?

Ah, yes, anecdotal stupidity. Well, it's just as easy to flip that around. Twitter is allowing those who never had a voice before to get heard. Will it be misused or used badly? Sure, at times. But does that condemn the whole system? No more than the fact that some folks use the telephone to say stupid things to one another means the telephone makes us stupid.

Also, most of what I read on Twitter is social posturing, self-promotion, and nonsense -- a whole community of people trying to boost their "follower count" without building real relationships with friends or customers or anyone else.

The problem seems to be this guy doesn't follow interesting people and doesn't seem to recognize the little button that makes it easy to unfollow anyone you dislike. Most of what I read on Twitter is insightful, interesting, relevant and fascinating. But that's because I try to follow insightful, interesting, relevant and fascinating people on Twitter. This guy should try that.

On the whole, though, it does seem a bit odd, looking at how incredibly hyperbolic and unsupported all of these claims are. Based on them, I could easily retort that "Criticizing Twitter And Facebook Makes You Stupid." But who would make widespread generalizations based on a few hand-picked pieces of data anyway?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> news-at-11 http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090514/1808394887