The IPtards are ragging today LoL

Whomever set them on fire I salute you.

Such a target rich environment, where do I start with this bowel movement?

When we talk about how dangerous PROTECT IP is as a censorship bill, we’re often told that we shouldn’t worry so much, because it’s only targeted at “rogue sites” and thus wouldn’t impact any legitimate sites. We’re told there’s nothing about rogue sites that is worth defending.

This is all true Masnick. Existing law under which NinjaVideo was seized could be used against a domestic site like Ebay or Costco… but it hasn’t. Why? Because they aren’t rogue websites. Pure FUDpacking.

And yet, as we’ve seen with the list of “pirate” sites that GroupM put together with help from the music and movie industries, their definition of a “pirate” site is expansive in the extreme. It included the Internet Archive, Vimeo, Soundcloud and a ton of blogs and news sites, including the famed Vibe magazine.

Shockingly, GroupM can’t unilaterally do jack shit under the Protect IP Act. Please articulate a convincing case under which a Federal judge would deem Ebay (or any of the other mentioned websites) rises to the following standard:

??Internet site dedicated to infringing activities?? means an Internet site that?
(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the
(i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(ii) violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or (B) is designed, operated, or marketed by
its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A);”

And don’t think it gets any different when you hop over to the trademark/counterfeit side of the debate. In Tim’s post about Monster Cable lobbying in favor of PROTECT IP, as an aside at the end, he notes that on Monster Cable’s own list of “rogue sites,” eBay and Craigslist top the list. And it doesn’t stop there. Retailing giant Costco is on the list. As is Sears. Also some Backpages sites are listed as well (Backpages is a Craigslist-like classifieds system). There’s also FatWallet, which is one of the most popular “deal” listings sites out there. There’s also PriceGrabber and ComputerShopper — popular legitimate sites for comparison shopping and computer purchases. These are not “rogue sites.” These are legitimate companies that Monster Cable appears to have a vendetta against, because they allow for or promote the resale of perfectly legitimate secondhand goods.

The fact that one whacko company lashes out crazily does not invalidate the virtue of the proposed law. Just like when one of the period certifiably-crazy tinfoil hatters posts nutty ravings, no one serious suggests that the guy is anything other than a crackpot.

In other words, for all the misleading whining from Monster about how it needs PROTECT IP to stop “rogue sites,” you can see from Monster’s own definition of what it considers a rogue site, that it would like to use such things to stomp out legitimate secondhand sales.

Can you find me anything in the Protect IP Act (or any other law) that Monster could cite as a basis to stop me from selling a used cable on Ebay or Craigslist? Didn’t think so.

Now, you can argue over whether or not these sites would pass following a judge’s scrutiny under PROTECT IP, but we’ve seen judges rubber stamp similarly questionable claims against blogs in the past as being “rogue sites.

Like NinjaVideo, Rojadirecta? Please Masnick you’re absolutely out of your mind to even suggest this. First of all, a legitimate company doesn’t hide like Roja and NV when the process server comes a-calling. Which of those companie yu mention do you figure would avoid service and be subject to an ex parte order seizing their website? It’s laughable FUDboy and you know it.

If you look at both the GroupM and the Monster lists, one thing becomes clear: these companies are defining any site they can’t control as being a “rogue site.” This isn’t about stopping “piracy.” It’s about using the law to stomp out channels that they can’t control.

Waiting for you to present a case that would convince a judge to misuse and misapply the law in such a gross manner.

his is a key point that becomes obvious if you spend any time looking at the details of this law. It’s not about protecting “IP.” It’s about protecting old business models that were based on absolute control of the channel. The complaints of the Universal Musics and Monster Cables of the world isn’t really about counterfeits and piracy, but about the fact that they no longer have absolute control.

They don’t have control without piracy and counterfeiting. They still have to compete in a marketplace that is full of able competition. They ought not be forced to compete against people who are selling the same thing as they are without incurring a dime in production costs, or (for hardgoods) trading on their good name and reputation that the companies have invested millions in creating.

And they’re just using “piracy” as the wool to pull over Congress’ eyes to pass a law that tries to give them back control over the channel… by declaring tons of perfectly legitimate sites “rogue sites.”

Utter and contemptible lies. First of all, the bill hasn’t even been passed (yet) and you’re already pronouncing that “they” will be “declaring tons of perfectly legitimate sites ‘rogue sites'”. And even if you did take a trip in your time machine- “they” can’t declare shit… unless your “they” is a Federal judge.

As an outrageous piece of shit as this is, I am heartened that your level of desperation has elevated to the point that you’d actually sign your name to something so embarrassingly false and self-serving. I can only infer that knowledgable people have done the math on the impact on freeloading and the result is terrifying to the freeloaders, their apologists and enablers.

If it ain’t broke, dont fix it.

Isn’t all the businesses that say piracy is hurting them assuming the people “stealing” are even going to buy their movies or music in the first place?