E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It

from the do-they-even-know-what-they're-doing? dept

Sometimes you just shake your head and wonder. As you now know, Rep. Lamar Smith just introduced the E-PARASITE Act, which puts incredibly massive regulatory compliance costs on large portions of the internet. Perhaps you think that Congress burdening companies — especially tech companies, which, recent studies have shown, are responsible for much of the job growth in this country — is par for the course. But, isn’t it interesting to see that just the day before E-PARASITE came out, the House Judiciary Committee cleared a bill to try to limit the costs of regulatory compliance. The main supporter of the bill? You guessed it — none other than the head of the House Judiciary Committee… Rep. Lamar Smith:

The bill ?is an urgently needed antidote to this anti-democratic sentiment,? Smith said in prepared remarks. ?It gives the people?s representatives in Congress the final say on whether Washington will impose major new regulations on the American economy, not unaccountable agency officials.?

Republicans point to a Small Business Administration analysis showing U.S. regulations cost $1.75 trillion to comply with in 2008 (that research doesn?t attempt to calculate societal benefits). House Republicans have focused much of their energy this Congress on regulations, voting to delay and weaken several Environmental Protection Agency rules reducing pollution from sources such as power plants, cement plants and industrial boilers.

So, basically, on Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith is against damaging regulations that increase compliance costs on the American economy and small businesses. Then, on Wednesday, he introduces a bill that will establish massive regulatory compliance costs on tons of American small businesses. Kinda makes you wonder if he even understands the legislation he’s introducing.

Filed Under: , , , ,

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 “E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
182 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 He saw the light

Typical troll scumbag. When asked to eloborate…you throw insults.

How wonderful! You do the exact same thing that you accuse me of. Thank you for saving me the trouble of pointing out how all of you are acting like willful children by demonstrating it so clearly. đŸ™‚

Al Roberts aka. me (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 He saw the light

you have devovled your own point, with your redponces to comments. As far as yo mamma jokes that would be to easy, I think your name says it all “Anonymous Coward”. you have your point of view, I have mine but you still remain, an Anonymous Coward. Don’t you want people to know your opinion? why do you use such a common sheild for identity? Was John Smith taken? Your name represents you very well my friend.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: He saw the light

I totally agree with you. Times have changed and we no longer need the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments. It’s long over due that we just strip them from the constitution.

The first amendment, lets just get rid of it, and force anyone creating content to get government approval. Subject to the whims of the current administration of course.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: He saw the light

“I don’t know that I agree with the last sentence there, but otherwise you’re right.”

Truth be told, that was sarcasm. If you don’t agree with that last sentence, then you should be against this bill. In history every example of peoples rights being eroded, has always led from a republic to an empire, and government imposed censorship.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 He saw the light

Truth be told, that was sarcasm.

You don’t have to reverse your opinion here just because it goes against the popular freetard mentality. People will respect you more if you stick with your guns. Don’t worry, I’ll be right there beside you taking a stand against the others here.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: He saw the light

> > Times have changed and we no longer need the
> > 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments

> but otherwise you’re right. Times have
> changed, let’s update the constitution to
> reflect that.

You seriously just agreed that we no longer need the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to address the government with our grievances, and the right to be free from warrantless search and seizure?

That’s really the position you’ve staked out for yourself?

Damn. You may be a totalitarian fascist at heart, but you get points for honesty, anyway.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Forget Wall Street … It’s Time For Occupy Hollywood.

Welcome friend!!! The LAPD is featuring a new, designer pepper spray this month: Habanero Lime. It goes particularly well with Croc’s, dreads and patchouli oil. It’s a bit crowded down at Central Booking but we notified the Crips to expect some extra guests bunking in with them. I’m sure they look forward to meeting you and learning about your struggle.

mischab1 says:

Re: Re: Re:

Talking sense?!?! Are you blind? 99% of the tech companies that would be negatively affected by this bill are companies that do NOT ‘make money based on infringement’.

Do you not believe in innocent until proven guilty? This bill allows any company to punishkill off any internet company it doesn’t like. If the company complaining is lying, they only get a slap on the wrist, and only if the victim can afford to take them to court.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It’s not bad just because you don’t like it. Get over yourself. You post comments on a two bit ‘tech’ blog. You can’t possibly grasp the subtleties involved with law making. When you get an advanced degree in law or a LOT of hands on experience (working for a lawmaker) come back and comment on how this law is going to lay ruin to society and allow the lizard-men to take over the world.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

How about posting your real name and credentials instead of avoiding the subject through humor. You claim to know better than others about the subtleties involved with law making, yet there’s nothing in what you’ve said so far to suggest that’s actually the case. You you do have the chops then go ahead and prove it.

The Groove Tiger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

If you feel the need to mock yourself because your opinion differs from your own, maybe you should re-evaluate just how confident you feel about your own position.

So, just because you post a dissenting opinion, you call yourself a troll?

Typical freetard, drinking the koolaid and calling dissenters like yourself trolls, instead of respecting your own opinion you lump yourself together with those who… uh, something.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Look- if these legacy tech companies have to make money based on infringement, then they need to find a new business model and adapt.”

What about tech companies that make their money legitimately but whose business model lends itself to abuse by others? I’m thinking of businesses such as Youtube and Dropbox here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You Tube was founded on infringement; their emails admitted it and that’s why they were sued.

You need to accept reality: If legacy tech companies have to make money based on infringement, then they need to find a new business model and adapt to conducting their business without breaking the law.

If they can’t, tough. They die. Someone else will start a website where people can show videos of their skateboarding dog.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.

Not if you listen to ootb. As an exstensive golfer and someone with an actual functioning brain, par is not “an excellent score for an expert”. It’s what you’re supposed to get on the hole if you play it properly or routinely. To clarify:

Every hole on a golf course assumes you need to putts to hole out. Getting on the green while still having two strokes left to par is called a GIR, or Green in Regulation.

Par is figured by how long the hole is, or if there are hazards or turns (doglegs) to make it more difficult. Par, or scratch, will almost NEVER win a professional (or expert) golf tournement. If par was an excellent score for an expert golfer, why the fuck is the leaderboard for a PGA even 30 players deep with folks UNDER par by the end of the tournement?

Par is the average score for an accomplished golfer. Birdie is a good score. Eagle is an EXCELLENT score.

Jesus Christ, Blue Balls, can’t you get ANYTHING right???!!

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.

You guys don’t grasp that “par” as “routine” applies to SKILLED golfers. If “amchoors” get into double digits on a par 72 course, they’re doing well.

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

“A hole is classified by its par, meaning the number of strokes a skilled golfer should require to complete play of the hole.[13] For example, a skilled golfer expects to reach the green on a par-4 hole in two strokes: one from the tee (the ‘drive’) and another, second, stroke to the green (the ‘approach’); and then roll the ball into the hole in two putts for par. This would be termed a ‘green in regulation’ (GIR). A hole is either a par-3, −4 or −5. Par-6 holes are extremely rare.[23]”

You guys have severe mental handicaps! About 40 points, I’d say. Here’s what par means for amateurs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(golf)

DogBreath says:

Re: Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.

This is not a golf site, so the “golf” definition is a moot point in this case, and your not grasping that skilled politicians doing what their contributors (handlers) pay them to do, is “par for the course” as in normal everyday business as usual.

Rep. Lamar Smith is not playing golf, he is playing with peoples livelihood.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If it were effective against actual bad actors, I’d be fine. But it’s not. It creates massive problems for tons of legitimate sites. If you can’t see that, you’re not paying attention.

Right. Tell me this, Mike. What would be an effective way to combat online piracy that you would approve of? I won’t hold my breath waiting for a response.

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What would be an effective way to combat online piracy that you would approve of?

You’re asking the wrong questions. The RIAA/MPAA aren’t in the piracy combat business– they don’t need effective ways to combat piracy, unless it will result in a gain in their actual business, selling non-scarce media.

So, the answer to your question is “Stop combatting piracy and focus on giving customers what they want”. If you want to prvent mold, you make sure there are no places where mold will flourish. If you want to prevent piracy, you make sure there are no places where piracy will flourish. If I can get what I want, when I want, at a price I feel is fair, then I have no need for piracy. *That* is how you beat piracy.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

it’s a strawman question anyway. It doesn’t matter if Mike has an effective way of combatting piracy or not, either way isn’t going to make the E-PARASITES’ act any better of an idea. Just because I don’t have a better plan for insterstellar travel doesn’t make your plan of cutting off your foot any more effective at it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

So sell it to them at the price they want to pay (usually $0), or they’ll take it anyway. And you can sell t-shirts and other stuff. Hmmm. Maybe we could just enforce the laws as written, and people would stop “stealing” stuff if it weren’t so easy to do so. If you don’t want to pay what I’m charging to see my latest blockbuster movie, then you don’t get to see it. It’s called real life. Accepting piracy with open arms isn’t really an answer, at least not one that works for everyone.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I guess you missed this article about Netflix traffic increasing and p2p traffic falling.

A snippet from that article:

“…the gap between Netflix and BitTorrent use is growing (BitTorrent’s share of aggregate U.S. traffic dropped from 21.6 percent in the spring to 16.5 percent in the fall, according to Sandvine), suggesting that people are turning to paid content instead of piracy for online video.”

That seems to indicate that if you offer it at a reasonable price in the formats desired, they will come.

But the studios, of course, will kill Netflix eventually with higher and higher licensing fees which will be passed to the customers and drive them somewhere else anyways.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I don’t think that last bit is true. I know that’s Mike’s theory, but I don’t buy it. NFLX is doing a good job of killing itself recently, but truth be told, I’m a buyer of their stock at this level. I think they’re going to bounce back and be healthy in the long wrong. I put my money where my mouth is just earlier…

As far as offering things at a reasonable price goes, sure, I agree. Where I disagree is that it’s OK for people to just take what they want if they don’t like the price. The whole “non-scarcity” argument is B.S. Just because it’s “artificially scarce” is no reason for people to just take it. If you want something, buy it. If it costs more than you want to pay, then don’t pay it and don’t “steal” it. But blaming companies for others pirating their goods is silly and wrong. I put blame where blame lies–with the pirates.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“That seems to indicate that if you offer it at a reasonable price in the formats desired, they will come.”

No, that is just an indication that more and more of the piracy online has shifted off of P2P and onto file locker sites. This is especially true for sites that have an affiliate or referral program, as the truly smart ones not only pirate the content, but attempt to turn it into money.

File lockers also have the double effect of hiding piracy in general traffic, and lowering overall traffic by getting rid of all of the peering overhead that exists.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“[…]at least not one that works for everyone.”

With all the evidence behind, say, the majority of heavy infringers also being the heaviest consumers, the increase in revenue as you drop prices or go to a pay-as-you-want scheme, the increase in sales of a book as you make a free version availible, etc., I’m tempted to think that if you can’t make infringement work for you, then you wouldn’t be able to make work, anyways

But I’m glad that you admit it works for some people.

Other note: “So sell it to them at the price they want to pay (usually $0)”, is something that we usually find is false. Everyone and their dog knows how to download [insert popular musician/band here]’s songs, yet they still sell plenty of copies. Sure, the price is very low, very close to $0, but then a vinyl disk actually did cost $10 back in the day to make and a virtual copy now costs as close to $0 as any good you’re ever going to sell.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“And those heavy infringers would be just fine paying for what they consume.”

Evidence shows two things:
1) They do not consume nearly so much of a product that they cannot ‘pirate’ (easily). This is very clearly seen in the sales of manga & anime related merch to over here for a particular series as soon as there is any fan translation. . . said merch including DVD’s & manga.
2) They would not consume nearly so much, and pay for even less, if they could not ‘pirate’.

For a lot of them, as well, cutting off their infringement, if it could so magically be done, wouldn’t make them pay more . . . they already spend as much as they are able to.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Ding ding ding! Give this man the prize.

I already spendy a healthy portion of my budget on entertainment related products (books, vinyl records, movie tickets). I currently pirate music and movies first, then buy the stuff I like.

For music, being unable to pirate would mean finding fewer new artists to enjoy, and thus spending no money on them (because I haven’t listened to them) and just enjoying what I already have.

Not being able to pirate movies would mean watching fewer movies, because I could only rent every so often from the store. And I would probably never buy any. So I would spend less on movies, too.
See how both of us are worse off in this situation? I get less media, you get less money. Its lose lose. Why would you want this to happen?

Actully, I would not be much worse off, because
I would probably spend more time reading books from the library and playing with my dog.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They could start by offering quality products at reasonable prices. That means stripping out regional restrictions, DRM, and unskippable advertisements and legal threats.

They could embrace new distribution methods and channels by removing arbitrary release windows and partnering with online retailers.

They could abolish policies that attempt to create artificial scarcities and begin to connect with their fans.

Just a few ideas…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

They could do all those things, and Mike has good ideas on these things. I’d like to see the laws we have be respected though, because I really am anti-piracy (unlike Mike). If you don’t like the way someone does business, then don’t do business with them. You certainly have no right to “steal” what they’re selling because you disapprove of their business model. Only sociopaths and pirate-apologists think otherwise.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’d like to see the laws we have be respected though, because I really am anti-piracy (unlike Mike).

While your position is perfectly reasonable, ethical, and consistent, it doesn’t really help anyone. Scolding pirates doesn’t get them to stop, and it certainly doesn’t get them to start spending more money. Rather than spending time on piracy and whether people should do it, Mike is focusing on trying to help content producers make money.

As freak asked, is your problem with piracy moral or economic? Would you have the industries continue fighting piracy even if shifting tactics to accommodate it would earn them more money? I think most people on this board are approaching it as a business question, rather than a moral one, so if you have the opposite perspective that could result in a lot of miscommunication.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Tell me this, Mike. What would be an effective way to combat online piracy that you would approve of?

I think you’ve missed the hundreds (maybe thousands) of Techdirt posts where Mike has already answered that question. (How you managed to comment on those posts without reading them is still a mystery that science has yet to answer.)

You combat piracy by giving people a reason to buy, offering goods and services that they want that are convenient and reasonably priced. Basically everything the legacy industries can’t seem to do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yeah, those legacy industries with their crazy property rights and expectations that people would pay them for their valuable property. That’s just crazy. How about if you selfish dickheads just stop taking other people’s stuff without paying. Oh yeah, not an option for some of you. Look, if some people can make money by embracing piracy, then good for them. But it’s silly and childish to just say that everyone should do that. The pendulum is swinging the other way, and the internet-IP-free-for-all-heyday is going to swing the other way. You guys really and truly brought this on yourselves.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Mike, what sort of “legitimate sites” do you think are going to have problems?

If you are doing to say “rap blogs”, well, they can still exist. They just won’t be able to stick pirated remixes on a file host and link to them, and act like they don’t know what it is. So perhaps they are bad actors after all, right?

If you are going to day “user contributed content sites”, I would say all they need to do is be able to know who is contributing the content, and to provide that information based on DMCA complaint or legal action, rather than being obstructionist or offering “anonymous” accounts to allow contributors to hide. Otherwise, perhaps they are just bad actors.

File lockers? Well, considering that they make their money by breaking larger, DVD sizes files into multiple pieces, and then severely limiting download abilities unless a user pays for a membership to “download the files”, knowing full well that most of the content in these files are DVD rips, well, perhaps they are just bad actors.

So, can you please give me some examples of truly above board sites that would be hurt?

Ron Rezendes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

From my viewpoint, this will not advance the progress of combating piracy. What it will advance is the technology to avoid the legislation. Iran just banned VPNs, Pakistan already has done so. Look for similar situations to occur around the globe as the “process, over time” tries to figure out what to ban next. Meanwhile script kiddies everywhere are three, four, five steps ahead of this enormous game of whack a mole that simply won’t ever be “won”, nor will any of these actions ever lead to a single cent of additional profit for the industries who sink millions into campaign contributions and other lobbying efforts to enact said laws. The only people benefiting are the attorneys and the Congressman who are swayed by kickbacks and contributions. No actor, producer, gaffer, make up artist, production crew member, etc. will EVER see anything additional on their paycheck. Remember, even the 14th highest grossing movie ever LOST money. This shell game in the name of piracy is a con game being run on Congress who are kept happy to keep the status quo. It is simply an enormous waste of resources that benefits a handful of people who are getting paid to go through the motions since the net result will NOT be additional income for any studio or person in the content industry from the bottom up.

It’s no different than the child at the beach trying to stop the ocean with a sand wall. You could use every grain on the beach to build your wall, the next morning, the beach will be relatively flat again. The day after that you won’t even know a wall was built. It’s an exercise in futility, carry on but don’t expect those with an ounce of common sense to agree with your actions or abide by them even.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I would say all they need to do is be able to know who is contributing the content, and to provide that information based on DMCA complaint or legal action, rather than being obstructionist or offering “anonymous” accounts to allow contributors to hide.

Says the Anonymous Coward. You’re cool with being anonymous here though, right? Anonymity is only for “honest” people or something? And a new, rather sweeping piece of legislation would never be used to start chipping away at anonymity online, whether it’s at a so-called “rogue” site or maybe just some site that the government or its connected industries just don’t care for.

Maybe some anonymous account is linking to articles that show Business A in a bad light. Or telling people how to email-bomb customer service because of an ignored issue. Or simply ranting about a poor quality product or service. And just like that, someone exercising their free speech has just had their personal info turned over to the offended business under some other pretense.

Or maybe someone pisses off the government with some lengthy rant and (because they have NEVER done anything like this before) the offended party (DHS, ICE, etc.) decides, what the hell, we’ve already got our foot in the door, and pressures the site owner to ID this anon account in order to charge the ranter with some extrapolation of another existing, vaguely written law (say, the PATRIOT Act).

But, no, that’s cool. Anonymity should be done away with. It’s obviously turned the internet into a den of thieves and whatever.

Capitalist Lion Fucker says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You know, the funniest part is if I put a name up top, you would not make that claim. here, let me try it out on this post. Feel better?

It really doesn’t matter here because I am not adding anything other than my own words. I am not uploading a file for sharing, or anything like that.

The rest of your post is a paranoid rant. Anonymous won’t be gotten rid of for places like this – it should be however trashed when it comes to adding content to a site. The site owner should always know who is adding to the site, track them, and be willing to give that information to any reasonable legal action WITHOUT objection.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You know, the funniest part is if I put a name up top, you would not make that claim. here, let me try it out on this post. Feel better?

No. I’d still make that claim. The lead-in sentence just wouldn’t “pop” as much. I have a named account but I don’t spend my time decrying the anonymity of others.

The rest of your post is a paranoid rant.

We’ll see. I see a lot of stuff happening already that I would have called myself “paranoid” for envisioning 10 years ago.

Anonymous won’t be gotten rid of for places like this

It’s already gone. ICE will move on an IP address and those are collected with every comment, whether you sign a name to it or not. If someone wants that info, it’s already available.

The site owner should always know who is adding to the site, track them, and be willing to give that information to any reasonable legal action WITHOUT objection.

I’m cool with that if the site owner states that up front. I would imagine incoming traffic will decrease immensely.

CLF
You fuck lions? You’re one up on me, dude. I just tame them. I call them “land sea lions.”

Wiggs (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Right! Which is why alcohol is not sold anywhere in the US to this very d…

Wait, what?

http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/21st_amendment_final.html

You mean they repealed that? Well consarnit! I was all ready to head down to the local speakeasy this weekend. Just don’t tell Rex Banner that I’m the Beer Baron, k?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Pay attention. What was a wild free for all before prohibition was turned into a highly regulated industry, with few who operate outside of the law anymore.

When you look at it overall, the government succeeded very well in bringing order and regulation to an industry that had a wild west mentality before that.

Welcome to the future. It is somewhat more regulated, for your safety and enjoyment.

TheStupidOne says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Prohibition has one enduring side effect. The American Mafia. From Wikipedia:

“Mafia activities were restricted until 1920, when they exploded because of the introduction of Prohibition.[7] An example of the spectacular rise of the Mafia due to Prohibition is Al Capone’s syndicate that “ruled” Chicago in the 1920s.[7] Similar scenarios occurred in other US cities as Italian gangs fought each other and other ethnicities for control in the lucrative bootlegging rackets. Victorious factions would go on to dominate organized crime in their respective cities, setting up the family structure of each city. Despite alcohol production and consumption being made illegal, there was still a high demand for it from the public. This created an atmosphere that tolerated crime as a means to provide liquor to the public, even amongst the police and city politicians. The high demand and consumption made bootlegging the most lucrative crime and turned local criminal gangs into large crime syndicates. While illegal stills were used to make alcohol, most of the country’s illegal alcohol was imported from Canada.”

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

and it was more difficult to profit while breaking the law.

Maybe. But the profits skyrocketed. Nothing makes something more profitable for the purveyors than having it outlawed. See also: The Drug War.

So, piracy may be “marginalized.” But those hated pirates who are already profiting from this will presumably see an exponential increase in their profits. That’ll show ’em!

bjupton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Prohibition did kick them in the balls. It made them go deep underground, and it was more difficult to profit while breaking the law.”

You are dumber than half a dog.

Prohibition made it possible to profit, massively, by breaking the law. It did not make it harder to profit while breaking the law. Rather it took law abiding citizens and turned them into potential criminals overnight.

The same will happen here. This will move underground, harming many legitimate businesses and people, and ‘piracy’ will still happen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

LOL! You can tell how effective this bill would be by the amount of whining that Mike does. More whining = more effective. This E-PARASITE bill will kick the pirates in the balls. Mike’s whining proves it. If it weren’t going to be so effective, Mike wouldn’t be whining so hard.

I see no evidence of Mike whining, but I do see plenty of evidence of you whining about Mike’s position on this bill. It’s just that your whining has assumed the form of insults and overconfident assertions.

me (profile) says:

Hollywood exec: We are making this movie.

Hollywood accountant: Studie show we will loose money on this film.

Hollywood exec: WE ARE MAKING THIS MOVIE!

Hollywood accountant: I’m telling you we will lose money.

Hollywood exec: NO we will not.

Hollywood accountant: How?

Hollywood exec: We Will sue people who don’t watch it.

Hollywood accountant: You can’t do that.

Hollywood exec: Then I will buy some politicians to make new laws.

Hollywood accountant: Oh OK, you can do that. Let’s green light this puppy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I have this amusing mental image of Mike, with his bizarre left bangs only haircut, in his prison inmate shirt, frothing at the mouth and rapidly trying to play “pin the tail on the donkey” over all of this.

Funny indeed. The haircut looks like something he gave himself. The prison-issue shirt will like be of better quality than the one he wore in the video. And woe unto Masnick if he ever gets tossed in a cell. A soft, doughy, mama’s boy like that won’t last 5 minutes. I can just hear him whining about his civil rights, the Constitution and his free speech.

out_of_the_blue says:

Choked on the 1.75 TRILLION figure.

Knowing a ballpark figure for total economy as 12 trillion, that’s pretty steep indeed, isn’t it? Near a sixth of the economy goes to unproductive regulation? Hmm…

So I looked this up (you can skip to my next para):
http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/853/2016
“The report divides federal regulations into four categories: economic, environmental, tax compliance, OSHHS (occupational safety and health, and homeland security). The estimate of economic regulations is obtained by regressing the Regulatory Quality Index on gross domestic product per capita, and includes labor market economic regulations that were included in the workplace regulation column in previous reports. Second, gaps in the baseline are filled with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates. The costs of workplace regulations are based on the updated estimates from the study by Joseph Johnson (2005). Homeland security cost estimates are based on OMB reports, as are environmental regulations estimates. Tax compliance costs, finally, are based on the 2005 report from the Tax Foundation. The allocation of costs across employment classes was made possible by use of Census data published by the Office of Advocacy.”

Picking most likely inflation point: what’s meant by “tax compliance” and where is it from? — “Tax compliance costs, finally, are based on the 2005 report from the Tax Foundation.”

So what’s that? — Appears to be a lair of neo-cons!
http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/5.html
“Scott A. Hodge is president of the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., and is recognized as one of Washington’s innovative thinkers on tax policy, the federal budget and government spending. Over the past 20 years Scott has been a leader in many successful efforts to change public policy. During the 1990s, he led the campaign to include the $500 per-child credit and capital gains tax cuts in the Contract with America. These tax cuts were the eventual centerpieces of the 1997 tax bill and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.” — He’s also big in Heritage Foundation.

Sum: yeah, I’d agree too much regulation, but behind the SBA report is rabid corporatism with hard-core fascist motives.

As for Mike’s main thrust: Yawn. It’s not even contradictory for the particular politician, they’re always for big business, element in common here.

Al Roberts aka. me (profile) says:

After being involved in “Operation Enduring Freedom” and being injured wich led to a disability. I find it comical my freedom is being taken, by the same government that had me fight for the freedom of others. maybe I’m wrong but, I find it almost hysterically Ironic. I actually fought for the rights of Anonymous Coward’s, and now I am losing the same right’s I fought for others.:)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

After being involved in “Operation Enduring Freedom” and being injured wich led to a disability. I find it comical my freedom is being taken, by the same government that had me fight for the freedom of others. maybe I’m wrong but, I find it almost hysterically Ironic. I actually fought for the rights of Anonymous Coward’s, and now I am losing the same right’s I fought for others.:)

Al, thank you for your service and I’m sorry to hear about your injury. But know that there are many who also served (including me) who are on the other side of the debate from you. Like you, I volunteered to serve. Like you, my opinion has no special status owing to my service.

Al Roberts aka. me (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Hold on I can’t breathe your putting to many words in my mouth at once. I never claimed “special opion points” I just merely stated a few facts, about me and my opinions. I ask you what rights are you refering to, I said nothing of rights. Your good at rebuttal, This is fum we should talk more. Thank You:)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Hold on I can’t breathe your putting to many words in my mouth at once. I never claimed “special opion points” I just merely stated a few facts, about me and my opinions. I ask you what rights are you refering to, I said nothing of rights. Your good at rebuttal, This is fum we should talk more. Thank You:)

I just thought it was gratuitous to mention your fighting for other’s freedom in this context, as though it implied a special status to your point-of-view. And regarding rights, I see “freedom” as a basket of rights (assembly, speech, redress, etc) Sorry, I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth.

Anyway, I do genuinely honor your service to this country. I wish more people who run around quoting the Constitution and demanding their “rights” had a more personal stake in securing those rights. And I respect your opinion. I just do not agree that having served is any more meaningful in this discussion than being left-handed.

anonymous says:

‘makes you wonder if he even understands the legislation he’s introducing’
he doesn’t care what the legislation is and doesn’t have to understand it. he probably has ex-MAFIAA and ex-RIAA employees on his staff to explain it all to him. the fact that what he gets told is a load of b/s is irrelevant. if there is any impact from the bill that would adversely affect him, he will get work-a rounds anyway. his main concern is getting the ‘campaign contribution’. however, the complete ‘about turn’ in opinions, within 24 hours, is rather damning for him, isn’t it? at least, i hope it is!

Prashanth (profile) says:

The Name

This isn’t entirely related, but I just realized that the name “E-PARASITES” is supposed to refer to the “horrible pirates and freetards destroying the Internet”. I swear, all this time I thought it was actually referring to the very organizations sponsoring it, like the RIAA, MPAA, et cetera. And if you think about it, my version makes more sense: big content lobbies are trying to profit off of the Internet to the detriment of literally everything else that makes the Internet such an amazing thing.

Anonymous Coward says:

You Tube cleaned up their act because they were sued. There is no need to pretend that technology doesn’t exist that can provide for filtering content that is unauthorized; they’re doing it right now. You Tube is fine as long as they remain vigilant on that front. There’s nothing wrong with a business taking responsibility for themselves and making sure what they do stays within the law. It’s how a society functions.

Dropbox might be required to request more stringent identification for those that use their services. Big deal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Why should online services have to screen the content that is posted to their websites? Youtube can afford to do this, but I can think of nothing that would justify having to filter content prior to its being posted. I would argue that such a requirement constitutes prior restraint and is therefore unconstitutional.

As for Dropbox, I see no reason why I should have to provide more information than what Dropbox itself chooses to request of me. They shouldn’t be required to demand such information, especially since the IP addresses they collect are already enough to trace infringement.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

This has no more to do with prior restraint than it does when a newspaper decides not to publish a letter to the editor.

If legacy tech companies have to make money based on infringement, then they need to find a new business model and adapt to conducting their business without breaking the law.

Ron Rezendes (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“There is no need to pretend that technology doesn’t exist that can provide for filtering content that is unauthorized;”

I just spit coffee all over monitor – thanks – that was hilarious!! Care to share the name of this magical technology?

please keep Viacom vs. YouTube in mind, you know – where Viacom couldn’t even keep track of what was and wasn’t authorized, then Viacom dropped some of the files from the case because they (were) found out later that THEY actually posted the files themselves.

If you have the magic bullet, please present said bullet!
I want to invest in the company who produces it so I can be rich too, because there are so many sites that will be forced to use it! It’s a guaranteed best seller!

Anonymous Coward says:

The difference in his opinion from day to day just depends on which industry he’s sold out to on that particular day. Being against regulations? That has to do with the EPA and environmental regulations – large corporations do not want those, so neither does Lamar Smith. Being against regulations? That’s for controlling information flow on the internet, which large corporations desperately want, so of course, Lamar Smith is for this as well.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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...