CreativeAmerica: When Major Hollywood Studios Set Up Bogus 'Grassroots' Campaigns

from the don't-make-me-laugh dept

For a little over a week now, we’ve been receiving emails from various actors and musicians, telling us that they’ve been getting emails from various entertainment industry giants, telling them to join a new “grassroots” coalition called CreativeAmerica, whose main purpose is to advocate for passing the PROTECT IP censorship bill. The whole thing is clearly an astroturf campaign. It was registered via domains-by-proxy to hide who really bought the domain name. It highlights the video that was secretly created and owned by NBC Universal. It includes the totally false claim that “there’s no such thing as a free movie.”

If you dig into the website to figure out who’s really behind it, it claims that it’s a “grassroots organization,” but fails to name a single creative individual who was behind putting the group together. Instead, it lists out the following companies and organizations who really put the site together (amusingly, they even block you from cutting and pasting this part, so I just retyped it — meaning I circumvented their DRM… come at me, entertainment industry):

CBS Corporation, NBC Universal, the Screen Actors Guild, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Viacom, the Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. Entertainment

Well, well. That’s not a grassroots effort, folks. Now, the site also includes various unions, including the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild and IATSE (stage hands, etc.). But these are the old school, out of touch unions that who have done little to nothing to help their members adapt to the times (often doing the opposite). Do we see any of the actually creative folks who have embraced new technologies, new methods of distribution and new business models? Nope.

In the meantime, how can the website seriously claim that it’s a grassroots effort when it has every single major Hollywood Studio behind it. Do they think that people are stupid? And should we remind people that these are the same studios who have all sorts of scammy tricks for “Hollywood accounting” to make sure even the most successful films are never seen as profitable, allowing them to avoid paying royalties to the actual creative folks.

Next, if you dig into the website, they have a “send a letter to your elected officials” thing. And the real evidence that it’s not a real grassroots effort? Just like other faux grassroots efforts, those agreeing to send the letter have no option to edit the letter. When groups like Demand Progress and EFF let you send letters about PROTECT IP, they let you edit them to your liking — trusting people to express themselves.

But, this “Creative America” apparently does not trust its own members to be creative. The letter is 100% locked down. You can only send their text. Honestly, if a group supposedly representing creators won’t even let its own members express themselves freely, you know that it’s not actually about protecting “creative” America.

This is not a grassroots effort. This is not about protecting “Creative America.” This is about protecting a few megacorporations who are scared of new innovations, afraid of their dwindling monopoly rents, and trying to force the rest of the world to go back to the way things used to be.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: cbs, disney, fox, nbc universal, news corp, sony, viacom

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “CreativeAmerica: When Major Hollywood Studios Set Up Bogus 'Grassroots' Campaigns”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
162 Comments
anonymous says:

‘This is about protecting a few megacorporations who are scared of new innovations, afraid of their dwindling monopoly rents, and trying to force the rest of the world to go back to the way things used to be.’

trouble is, because of the greed and stupidity of most governments, politicians and law makers, coupled with the ‘forbidding’ of any view other than theirs from being posted, printed or discussed, they are achieving exactly what they want!

Anonymous Coward says:

this “Creative America” apparently does not trust its own members to be creative.

Or maybe it *does* trust them to be creative, which is why it’s locked down.

After all, one of the things about being creative is thinking of new ideas, and if you want people to say something on your behalf, the last thing you want them doing is thinking.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Nonsense, with great new creative movies out in cinemas now like: “The Thing”, “Footloose”, ?The Three Musketeers”, “Red Dawn”,”The Lion King 3D” “The Twilight Saga”, “Transformers 3”, “Paranormal Activity 3″,”Happy Feet Two”,”Johnny English Reborn”.
Hollywood can’t possibly get more creative.

bob (profile) says:

More astroturfing for Big Search.

Oh come on. This blog is full of astroturfing for Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. All three of these are big enterprises and they rake in much more than the content companies. All three of them hate to watch content companies share in the revenue and that’s why all three of them like to pretend that free content is the only thing that consumers want.

Furthermore, these industries are much, much bigger than Big Content. Google has a $190b market cap. Disney, one of the largest studios that gets plenty of revenue from theme parks and stuffed animals is valued at only $65b. Many studios are priced around $5-10b.

Big Content may have some a few mega corporations but Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy are supermegacorporations. And these supermegacorporations depend on getting the work of Big Content for free. Big Search can’t put up ads on things behind paywalls. Big Hardware can’t sell more hard disks if people are going to pay a fair price to fill them up. (No one spends $5000 to fill up an MP3 player with 5000 songs. Why will they buy a new one?)

I could go on, but quit this bogus astroturfing trying to pretend that Big Content is the giant here. It’s not. The other companies are much, much bigger.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: More astroturfing for Big Search.

Yeah man, Sony (also known as Evil Big Television)has been riping Hollywood off for years. They make billions by selling TV’s and Radios! And whose content do you think they steal to make the huge profits? Why poor Hollywood’s of course, who’s only crime was making sure artists get paid. OH, THE HUMANITY!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: More astroturfing for Big Search.

>Big Content is, and has always been, a parasite on big hardware. Big content could not exist without hardware.

People would buy iPods without music? People would buy Blu-Ray players without Blu-Ray discs?

That’s precisely backwards. Hardware and technology are created to take advantage of what people are already doing. Big Hardware seeks to control the content industry to its own advantage.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing for Big Search.

People would record songs without hardware? People would make movies without hardware?

He had it precisely right. Without hardware, all movies would be plays, and as much as I like theater, I’ve never seen a play gross tens of millions on opening night. Without hardware, all music would be live (and A cappella?), and as much as I enjoy a concert, the most attended concert tour was a little over 4.5 million.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing for Big Search.

Yes they would, it can store photos of children and movies.

They also would have bought the iPhones since they can be used for:

– Changing your channels.
– VCR kind of thing.
– Photo taking.
– Photo manipulation.
– GPS navigation.
– Dictionary.
– Radio.
– TV.
– Medical recording.
– Phone.

People do buy Bluray players not for playing Blurays but for using as storage unit devices, although that would be dumb, people could just use HDD’s.

Would there be photographers without a camera capable of capturing images?

Would there be cinematography if there were not equipment capable of recording images?

Karl (profile) says:

Re: More astroturfing for Big Search.

This blog is full of astroturfing for Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. All three of these are big enterprises and they rake in much more than the content companies

What, seriously? “Big Piracy” doesn’t even make enough income to pay back their server costs. “Big search” seems to be some idiotic anti-Google thing, despite the fact that when they entered the game, they were very much up against the legacy “big search” industries (e.g. AOL, Yahoo!, etc).

And “Big Hardware” pretty much is at the mercy of Microsoft. Plenty of hardware companies would prefer to make their hardware compatible with e.g. Google, but they can’t, because Microsoft will disavow them if they do.

I could go on, but it’s obvious that you have no idea whatsoever about subjects that are near and dear to your paycheck, which is particularly pathetic.

Hak Foo (profile) says:

Re: More astroturfing for Big Search.

I’ve been baffled by this meme for weeks.

“Big Piracy”. All I can imagine from that is Eiichiro Oda’s morbidy obese portrayal of Blackbeard. I guess maybe he follows RIAA logic and belives that P2P software firms hold six times the total capital on earth.

“Big Search”. Yeah. I’m a Google fan. They’ve created billions of dollars of real stockholder value in recent years and gone from “Cool tech demo” to “hub of modern life”.

“Big Hardware”. What’s to like there? Oh, yeah! I remember! The fact that now you get five thousand times more disc space or processing power for the same money as years ago.

Given the choice between standing up for these industries, and “Big Content”, which seems to have all the business acumen of a taco salad, I will indeed apologize for them. Hey, content industry– if you want apologists, maybe look at the concept of “new products which offer better value for the customer than the ones they replace.”

out_of_the_blue says:

Mike, show me "a free movie"! Meaning no one /paid/ anything to produce it.

You can’t, of course.

First, yeah, yeah, astroturfing as tactic. Big deal. You had to re-type a bit from a graphic (I assume: can’t get to the site yet…) to find the actual sponsors. (A bit later: the site is horrible, doesn’t display right.)

ANYWAY, it’s not a “totally false claim”, Mike. Example me ONE “free movie” that just appeared out of the blue, no backers who put cash in, from which were paid no salaries or payments to actors, no equipment rentals, no site rentals, no transportation, no film or post-processing, no distribution, and NO one put in their time at least: no NOTHING. You can’t just wave your magic wand and disappear all those (and any I neglect) as “sunk (or fixed) costs” so that you can focus on /only/ “marginal costs”. This isn’t a movie, Mike, you need more than a facade of expertise.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Mike, show me "a free movie"! Meaning no one /paid/ anything to produce it.

One, you need an accounting class, and two, you need to understand what Mike is trying to say.

He’s not saying that no one is paying for the movies, he’s using the term “Free Movie” like CreativeAmerica is using it: you can’t watch a movie without paying money (lots of money).

In the grander scheme, there is no such thing as a free lunch, at the vary least you have to pay with your time. But the entertainment industry is only interested in the grander scheme when it benefits them.

robin (profile) says:

Re: Mike, show me "a free movie"! Meaning no one /paid/ anything to produce it.

Son, your reasoning is backwards and mis-guided. To wit:

The producers’ (you) cost structure is not the purchasers (me) problem. That is the very basis of any freely undertaken economic transaction.

If the producer can’t make money faced with certain market-place realities, he/she/you will either stop producing or figure out how to sell into the existing marketplace.

var producer == UnitedArtists;
var purchaser == JoeSmith;
if (JoeSmith != stupidAsARock) {
//JoeSmith is not out $25 for DRM’d crap from UnitedArtists
}

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Mike, show me "a free movie"! Meaning no one /paid/ anything to produce it.

“You can’t, of course.”

Of course, but that’s irrelevant. Nobody’s even said that movies need to have zero production costs.

I can, however, point you toward a large number of movies I’ve seen for free, perfectly legally, be it on a borrowed DVD, on a free-to-air TV channel, even a free screening of The Exorcist in a small castle a mile or so away from where I’m currently sitting.

The fact that idiots like you can’t conceive of the fact that the movie made money in all of these instances, despite me not having paid a penny directly, is one of your many, many failings.

hmm (profile) says:

Re: Mike, show me "a free movie"! Meaning no one /paid/ anything to produce it.

Yes this isn’t a movie, so you ain’t allowed to get away with gaping plot holes…….

Films that “just appeared”..hmmm Colin? (Chronicle of Pain)
(cost $45 and that was the main guy who filmed himself’s food costs during the movie….everyone else appeared for free just for the hell of it.)

I’m sure there are plenty of others

bob (profile) says:

Most Americans are Creative Americans

To hear this blog spin it, most of America is just sitting on their couch waiting for the latest torrent to download. Anyone who hates on torrent freeloaders is hating on America.

Perhaps, but many of the folks I know actually create things from time to time. They like the idea that their letters, posters, drawings, songs and other creations are theirs until they make a decision how they’ll be distributed. They like keeping control.

Now they may choose to release their creations under a CC license or they may want to put up a big paywall to ensure that everyone who sees it pays a small bit. Or they may want something in between. But they like control.

This blog space is filled with creator haters who are playing right into the hands of Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. All of the rhetoric here is dedicated to stripping creators of their rights. Every argument here is meant to make creators feel guilty for doing anything but helping Big Search sell more ads.

That’s why I think you’re wrong about the needs and wants of the consumers.

el_segfaulto (profile) says:

Re: Most Americans are Creative Americans

I create software and have done consulting work for “Big Hardware” and “Big Search”, don’t I get a say? I had a long diatribe in my head for this, but feeding trolls is only satisfying for the first few minutes. Needless to say, people like you are the problem…the reason why those in the know are dissatisfied with out-of-control copyright and the assault on the public domain.

el_segfaulto (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Most Americans are Creative Americans

I’ve seen some of my work on The Pirate Bay (was upset that only 4 people were seeding) and the only part that angered me was the idea that somebody could have slipped a virus wrapper around the installer and using my project as a malware vector.

Once you release the work to the world at large, you can’t realistically hope to retain all control over copying. Once you get that idea into your head, it’s much easier to forgive piracy. I don’t condone piracy, but I do use it as a marker that there is a failure in the market. My particular case was puzzling simply because of the fact that my project was (like all of them) 100% open source and hosted on SourceForge.

el_segfaulto (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Most Americans are Creative Americans

There are two types of pirates (in my experience).

Those that will pirate no matter what. There’s not much you can do to stop people like that.

Those that are willing to purchase, but don’t feel the price reflects the value of the product. In this case you need to take a good long look at what you’re selling. I’d rather sell 5,000 widgets at $10 per, than 500 widgets at $100 per.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Most Americans are Creative Americans

The fact that you can’t grasp the reason why speaks volumes…

Hint: he’d rather more people have access to and use of his work.

“assuming that the widgets had the cost of production you’d make out better selling 500”

He’s talking about software, genius, which has a marginal cost of virtually zero.

Ben (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Most Americans are Creative Americans

Even considering tangible good he’s mistaken. It’s cheaper in the long run PER unit to make 1000 of something than 10, as you spread any development, tooling costs over more units. Each is incrementally more profitable.

Of course having more people use my item also means more word of mouth etc etc, but since when have the copyright mob preferred abundance over scarcity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Most Americans are Creative Americans

I don’t think you’re alone in that. I’ve seen a few things online and ended up on a few shady sites wondering about software, and seen others who said they’d created that software lament the fact that after dling it themselves, finding a virus/malware contained therein. At which point, a few, have told people “if you want to download it, I can’t stop you, but get it from a more reliable place” and they’ve then posted SourceForge links (or what have you). Which I found to be commendable.

No lectures. No trying to force their morals on others. Nothing. Just a “hey, be safe” (pretty much). Which is cool in my book. (And no, I am not there looking for that software, but I like to find out as much info about any given software and others similar to it as I can. Comments, no matter where they come from, provide insight into pretty much anything. Be it software, movies, music, games, etc.)

el_segfaulto (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Most Americans are Creative Americans

I don’t mind telling you, one of my favorite pieces of software I found while dinking around on TPB. PTGUI is awesome for stitching photos, it’s commercial and I am no way affiliated with them, I just figured it was a good illustration of what you were talking about.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Most Americans are Creative Americans

Yeah, that’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Never heard of PTGUI, now I have and can investigate it accordingly. So thanks. Perfect example of what I mean.

Another example, Handbrake. How I’d never heard of it is beyond me. But I’d been looking into ripping my dvds to put on my and my family’s Apple devices. There’s tons of software out there that can do the job, most charge. Some of the free ones aren’t up to par. Was looking up one bit of software on TPB, heard about Handbrake, been using it since. And, the mp4 rips it creates can be played on my PS3 (which we as a family use more for video watching than gaming). So it was even better. I swear by it since it also does rips that work on my Android devices, the quality is great (and you can customize it as need be or use default settings). I to am in no way affiliated with Handbrake, but for my basic needs it’s what I use.

kirillian (profile) says:

Re: Most Americans are Creative Americans

Woah.Woah.Woah…I missed the new shill memo on the new language for trolling…Big Hardware, Big Piracy, and Big Search? Really? Who the heck comes up with this stuff?

There’s nothing wrong with people wanting to monetize their work. Never has been. Never will be. The market works by providing goods and services that people want. If you don’t provide those, then people will get something else or go to someone who does. You want to make money? Then offer the goods and services people want. Period.

Your arguments don’t even address REAL comments or opinions held by those who frequent this site. Cut the BS. You’re just wasting my screenspace.

hothmonster says:

Re: Re: Most Americans are Creative Americans

Yeah big piracy, you know those megacorpotations that run the pirate bay.

Big Hardware, like he said they like piracy so people fill ipods and buy more, because we all know soooo many people with multiple full ipods. Lord nows one ipod with 3 months worth of continuous music is never enough.

Big Search, real nefarious types. They have only made billions of dollars by providing a service and advertising over it but now apparently they are aligned in a secret conspiracy to bring down content creators, you know, despite the fact that google could afford to buy all the content creators and shutter them if they really cared that much about bringing them down.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: "Do they think people are that stupid"

“Hey let’s protest big business”

You may have missed the actual point of the protests.

“while using products from big business”

Because, say, Apple (a company that makes products that makes communication and productivity easier) is exactly the same as the banks (whose pure greed and gambling on risky investments caused a worldwide recession and massive unemployment). Yeah. Exactly the same.

Anonymous Coward says:

Now, the site also includes various unions, including the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild and IATSE (stage hands, etc.). But these are the old school, out of touch unions that who have done little to nothing to help their members adapt to the times (often doing the opposite). Do we see any of the actually creative folks who have embraced new technologies, new methods of distribution and new business models? Nope.

You’re right Masnick. Those people only produce the motion pictures and televisions shows viewed by billions of people around the world. Sorry that Nina Paley didn’t make the cut, but maybe Creative America will let her join so she can show them how it’s done.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wy do you think you are entitled to receive something of value without compensating the rightful owner?

First, we’d have to agree on who is the “rightful owner” of content (which we don’t), and even then “entitled” is not the right word, since I don’t think anyone is obligated to let me copy anything.

But if someone offers, I’m there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

First, we’d have to agree on who is the “rightful owner” of content (which we don’t), and even then “entitled” is not the right word, since I don’t think anyone is obligated to let me copy anything.

OK. How about it ain’t the guy downloading copyrighted work for free without authorization of the rightsholder?

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

OK. How about it ain’t the guy downloading copyrighted work for free without authorization of the rightsholder?

Trivially true, because content itself has no “rightful owner”.

If you are the rightful owner of a hard drive, you have a property interest in the current configuration of that hard drive. That doesn’t extend to other people’s hard drives, however, which is where I think our opinions part ways.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Why do anybody needs permission to copy something?

Do people need to ask permission to copy food?
Do people need permission to copy houses?

Why do you believe you have the right to stop others from copying you?

Is not your right to do so, you need others to agree to it and they certainly by now have shown that they don’t.

surfer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

My entitlement is the show was broadcast freely over the airwaves, I missed the episode, and DVR’ed it via usenet.

You say ‘entitlement’ like I owe you money because I timeshifted free digital one’s and zero’s across the airwaves, copper lines, and the digital internet

THAT YOU GOT PAID FOR!! from the tv, cable or internet that paid your exorbitant licensing fees to broadcast, and then inserted commercials to cover your outlandish fees.

How much did the producer and actors of ‘Lost’ actually get paid out of all that licensing? Surely not even a fraction. Oh, and then you apply Hollywood Accounting to ensure you do not have to compensate the actual creators.

Your just the leech in the middle, I owe you nothing. In fact whomever edited the commercials out, and re-distributed the content hold the copyright on the new and improved version.

You build on content, so do we.

>:-)

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: Re:

They are also the people who are not making their movies and tv shows available to me in an affordable and convenient way.

I like watching the tv show Mentalist. However, if I miss an episode, I can’t watch it because it is not available on any legal website.

If I want to watch the show I missed, I have to do one of two things: 1)wait a year or more to buy the season on DVD and then catch up on the plot events I missed. 2) download it from the pirate bay, watch it and then move on with my life and hope I don’t miss an episode again.

Same thing for a lot of other shows.

What good does it do the content creator if I am forced by their own actions to resort to ‘illegal’ means to stay current on a show when there are legal means that the content creator can take advantage of to keep me honest? Hulu was a hugely successful platform that all content companies could have taken advantage of and made more money. But because they didn’t know how to take advantage of it, they have killed all means of legal consumption over the internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

They are also the people who are not making their movies and tv shows available to me in an affordable and convenient way.

I like watching the tv show Mentalist. However, if I miss an episode, I can’t watch it because it is not available on any legal website.

So buy a TIVO for christssakes.

If I want to watch the show I missed, I have to do one of two things: 1)wait a year or more to buy the season on DVD and then catch up on the plot events I missed. 2) download it from the pirate bay, watch it and then move on with my life and hope I don’t miss an episode again.

Same thing for a lot of other shows.

What good does it do the content creator if I am forced by their own actions to resort to ‘illegal’ means to stay current on a show when there are legal means that the content creator can take advantage of to keep me honest? Hulu was a hugely successful platform that all content companies could have taken advantage of and made more money. But because they didn’t know how to take advantage of it, they have killed all means of legal consumption over the internet.

Why is it you think interfering with your personal convenience justifies breaking the law? Unfuckingreal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“So buy a TIVO for christssakes.”

“Why is it you think interfering with your personal convenience justifies breaking the law? Unfuckingreal.”

loololololololololololololololololololololololololoolololololololololololololoololololololololololololololololololololololololoolololololololololololololoololololololololololololololololololololololololoolololololololololololololoololololololololololololololololololololololololoolololololololololololololoololololololololololololololololololololololololoololololololololololololo

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“So buy a TIVO for christssakes.”

Explain this to me: in reality, what exactly is the difference between watching a show recorded via TIVO, and watching the same show downloaded online? Assume, for the sake of argument, that I don’t watch the ads on the TIVOed version, and that I’m paying the cable subscription.

“Why is it you think interfering with your personal convenience justifies breaking the law? “

Why is it that you think that the comment you’re responding to, that refers directly to how useful legal platforms like Hulu *should* be if the licence holders weren’t morons, is justifying legal behaviour? Could it be that the tossers you worship are leaving the illegal option as the only choice? Other than simply watching something else and not watching future episodes of the show he missed, of course.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I will go wild here and say that how is done goes along like this.

You sign up your future with a label with huge financial obligations that most probably will never be able to be paid unless you brake into the very top earners in the industry you also loose all control over what you create, and unless anybody says you are playing them you will never see a cent from royalties, while the labels use your work for free to promote their own status, that sounds about right don’t you think?

How about the studios, if you work for them and accept as payment a percentage of the profits hopping it will help you pay your expenses in the future, you are out of luck since no movie ever made apparently on paper ever is profitable, so there are no residuals to be paid.

No wonder places like Jamendo are exploding, Youtube is full of funny stuff and people can actually compete with TV shows now isn’t that wonderful, they give it all away to the public and still manage to make a good money.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, here is one.

I post a video to a popular video site. Some big content company decides the site I use for distribution is a site “dedicated to infringing activities” and has it seized.

My distribution system is now killed even though my content was 100% legal.

So you put the video on this site and had no idea that they were dedicated to infringing activity? I’ve read some of your comments and doubt you’re as dumb as you’re pretending to be here.

You chose that site as opposed to YouTube or a legit player for a reason. You made an adult decision so you need to deal with the consequences of that decision.

Not to mention that there are many, many legal, legitimate alternative outlets.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:


You chose that site as opposed to YouTube or a legit player for a reason. You made an adult decision so you need to deal with the consequences of that decision.

Not to mention that there are many, many legal, legitimate alternative outlets.”

until protectip passes and the industry asks the government to shutter them all. But ill post it on youtube you know that site the gatekeepers almost managed to shut down till google swooped in and bought them out? Arnt they still evil? or are they good guys now because its owned by a company you can’t afford to fuck with?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

until protectip passes and the industry asks the government to shutter them all. But ill post it on youtube you know that site the gatekeepers almost managed to shut down till google swooped in and bought them out? Arnt they still evil? or are they good guys now because its owned by a company you can’t afford to fuck with?

First, Protect IP only deals with foreign websites, not US-based. Second, Google is doing a somewhat better job of dealing with copyrighted content now that they run the show. Finally, there are people who would state that the content industry is fucking with Google right now.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Second, Google is doing a somewhat better job of dealing with copyrighted content now that they run the show.”

So does that mean you realize infingment is inevitable and we should sacrifice our rights for it?

“Finally, there are people who would state that the content industry is fucking with Google right now.”

shaving the bear while its sleeping is not the same as fucking it

Ben (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Some big content company decides the site I use for distribution is a site “dedicated to infringing activities””

This statement implies nothing to do with the site being ‘dedicated to infringing activity’. If you go on Big Content’s definition of sites dedicated to infringing activity, you end up with a ton of collateral damage, such as Ebay, Craigslist, YouTube etc.

Some infringement empowered by use of these sites does not make them dedicated to infringing.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“You chose that site as opposed to YouTube or a legit player for a reason”

As ever, you completely miss the point and go off on a tangent, yet come so close to actually grasping a basic concept…

(Hint: the “big content” companies have tried repeatedly to shut YouTube down for infringement, and it’s only due to safe harbour provisions and Google’s bank account that they didn’t succeed.)

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Regulatory capture. A few big industries are writing our laws for their benefit.

Perhaps if we reformed copyright law so that it wasn’t so absolutely ridiculous and one-sided, more people would respect the law.

PROTECT IP is a step in the wrong direction. It’s a way to prevent foreign websites from being accessed in America, and gives private companies enormous say in which websites are blocked. I don’t care if it’s to stop piracy or not, this is an attack on the internet, and I would rather the content companies go down in flames than the government start telling me which websites I can and cannot look at.

If the movie studios want to stop piracy, they can offer their movies for streaming. There’s a website called Netflix that serves that need.

Oh, and those same movie studios keep bragging year after year about the record profits they’re making.

hmm (profile) says:

the reason

The REAL reason the letter is uneditable isn’t because they don’t trust people to add their own thoughts, it’s so Hollywood can send hundreds of THOUSANDS of identical letters (with randomly generated IP addresses).

If there was a way to EDIT the letters, then each one would have to be manually modified, which would cost time/effort.
Or they could try to alogarithmically generate changes but this would probably be easy to detect as there would be glaringly obvious errors.

Because they’re all duplicates of each other it’s easier just to spam elected officials and pretend real people did it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...