DH's Love Child's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the let-the-love-child-speak dept

Wow. What a week. Unless you were living under a rock this week, you probably noticed a rather pervasive theme… At my last count, 46 articles were written this week about SOPA/PIPA including 20 on SOPA protest day. As I look back at the week, I was almost overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of articles and comments about this issue. For something that was supposed to just breeze through the legislative process, these bills very quickly polarized the population.

My favorites are a mix of the political (which, I have to confess, normally bore me to tears), and the funny.

Marcus Carab’s article about mocking the blackouts easily got my top spot for the week. His analysis was thoughtful and witty. I particularly loved this part:

“WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE? WHY AM I THE LAST TO KNOW WIKIPEDIA IS BLOCKED! I BE ON THERE DAILY!!! [I like that she is less annoyed about losing Wikipedia than she is about the fact nobody told her. I’ve often thought SOPA/PIPA supporters are just mad because they were the last to find out about free movies.]”

Too true.

On the political side, this short but sweet article about both SOPA and PIPA being delayed (but not canceled) was a great result of netizens mobilizing, while this article asking what’s next is a good reminder that there’s still a lot of work to be done to make sure we keep our internet freedom.

This write-up about government and technology was a fascinating look into the procurement process (including some insightful comments) as well as a reality check on why government should tread VERY carefully on technology issues.

In the middle of this was the very disappointing ruling from our top jurists. This ruling disturbs me greatly and I wish the netizens could organize the same kind of blackout to raise awareness of how out of control copyright has become. The ruling also illuminates just how treaties and trade agreements (like ACTA and the TPP) can cause laws to have to change to meet our ‘international obligations’.

This trio of articles on DOJ, Megaupload and Anonymous were another look at how SOPA and PIPA really aren’t necessary as long as big content has the DOJ’s ear. Spend those dollars wisely, Hollywood!

Finally, if you want to know more about how the MPAA and Chris Dodd think, these articles are a great read. Remember kids, it’s all about the Benjamins.

And with that, I return you to your regularly scheduled trolling.

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 “DH's Love Child's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re:

They’re all pirates that deserve to be locked up.

But think of this as the drug war on technology. You take away the supply it’s going to (magically) take away the demand.

Knock out enough of the servers and people find other sources for information and cloud servers.

You lock up the people who are providing the access and now they HAVE to go to the labels. The only problem here, the demand for content doesn’t go away. The ICE is fighting the same losing battle as they are in immigration and everywhere else.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Not like the war on drugs, because in piracy, what people are demanding can also legally be bought.

Now we see why you can’t understand or argue anything successfully. The person you replied to said “The War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, the War on Piracy all have something in common: they can’t be won, but they can still turn a country into a police state.” he didn’t say “they are alike in every respect”. So your argument attacked a point he never actually made.

Go away and learn to read carefullly and argue logically about the point that is actually under discussion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I recently bought all prior seasons of a TV show I love; wanted to see all episodes in succession since I’d not caught it from the beginning years ago. I enjoy it enough that I made the decision to shell out for the DVDs, found at what I considered a very reasonable price, and I’m glad I did.

The current season started this year sometime, but because I was behind I didn’t watch them, didn’t want to spoil things for myself. I pay for cable service. I pay extra for the hi-def box. I pay extra for cable’s on-demand service and thought I’d just catch up that way.

Wrong. This particular network chooses not to provide their shows on-demand via cable. ‘Kay. I’ll try their website where they claim they have full episodes. And they do – of the first and last episodes of the current season. Nothing inbetween. This is helpful to fans…how?

I forgot to mention that this is a network available OTA. They’ve made their money from their advertisers already and will continue to do that via reruns (whenever that happens) and further down the line when it goes to syndication (I’m sure they show ads during the show on the web as well). All those that work on the show have been paid for what they did, no jobs lost. The future holds only additional returns for the producers of the content.

But I cannot find the current shows anywhere that doesn’t expect further payment from me. I’ve paid already with my cable bill, my time viewing ads. If I found them elsewhere for free, what have I stolen from anyone? How can I be regarded as a criminal for stealing something that is not provided? Something I’ve already paid for?

I wanted to say these were the nuances that are steadfastly overlooked by those complaining about digital “theft”, but it’s not nuance at all. Demanding payment for something you don’t provide is pure entitlement, bad business, and do not deserve reward. To fail your market is no one’s fault but yours. And since it doesn’t instruct upon business models in the least, copyright law has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You are the problem, not your customers.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I’ve heard they are going after the users.

Also, for the next time someone tries to lie to you and say pirates aren’t profiting:

2010 Maserati GranCabrio, VIN ZAMKM45B000051328, License Plate No. ?M-FB 212? or ?DH-GC 470?, registered to FINN BATATO;
2009 Mercedes-Benz E500 Coupe, VIN WDD20737225019582, License Plate No. ?FEG690?;
2005 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM, VIN WDB2093422F165517, License Plate No. ?GOOD?;
2004 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM AMG 5.5L Kompressor, VIN WDB2093422F166073, License Plate No. ?EVIL?;
2010 Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG L, VIN WDD2211792A324354, License Plate No. ?CEO?;
2008 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drop Head Coupe, VIN SCA2D68096UH07049; License Plate No. ?GOD?;
2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG, VIN WDD2120772A103834, License Plate No. ?STONED?;
2010 Mini Cooper S Coupe, VIN WMWZG32000TZ03651, License Plate No. ?V?;
2010 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN WDC1641772A608055, License Plate No. ?GUILTY?;
2007 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG, VIN WDD2163792A025130, License Plate No. ?KIMCOM?;
2009 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN WDC1641772A542449, License Plate No. ?MAFIA?;
2010 Toyota Vellfire, VIN 7AT0H65MX11041670, License Plate Nos. ?WOW? or ?7?;
2011 Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG, VIN WDB4632702X193395, License Plate Nos. ?POLICE? or ?GDS672?;
2011 Toyota Hilux, VIN MR0FZ29G001599926, License Plate No. ?FSN455?;
Harley Davidson Motorcycle, VIN 1HD1HPH3XBC803936, License Plate No. ?36YED?;
2010 Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG, VIN WDD2163742A026653, License Plate No. ?HACKER?;
2005 Mercedes-Benz A170, VIN WDD1690322J184595, License Plate No. ?FUR252?;
2005 Mercedes-Benz ML500, VIN WDC1641752A026107, License Plate No. DFF816;
Fiberglass sculpture, imported from the United Kingdom with Entry No. 83023712;
1957 Cadillac El Dorado, VIN 5770137596;
2010 Sea-Doo GTX Jet Ski, VIN YDV03103E010;
1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible, VIN 59F115669;
Von Dutch Kustom Motor Bike, VIN 1H9S14955BB451257;
2006 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM, VIN WDB2094421T067269;
2010 Mini Cooper S Coupe, VIN WMWZG32000TZ03648 License Plate No. ?T?;
1989 Lamborghini LM002, VIN ZA9LU45AXKLA12158, License Plate No. ?FRP358?
2011 Mercedes-Benz ML63, VIN 4JGBB7HB0BA666219;
Samsung 820DXN 82? LCD TV;
Samsung 820DXN 82? LCD TV;
Samsung 820DXN 82? LCD TV;
Devon Works LLC, Tread #1 time piece;
Artwork, In High Spirits, Olaf Mueller photos from The Cat Street Gallery;
Sharp 108? LCD Display TV;
Sharp 108? LCD Display TV;
Sony PMW-F3K Camera S/N 0200231;
Sony PMW-F3K Camera S/N 0200561;
Artwork, Predator Statue;
Artwork, Christian Colin;
Artwork, Anonymous Hooded Sculpture;
2009 Mercedes-Benz ML350 CDI 4MATIC Off-Roader;
Sharp LC-65XS1M 65? LCD TV;
Sharp LC-65XS1M 65? LCD TV;
TVLogic 56? LUM56W TV;
Sixty (60) Dell R710 computer servers.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Alleged pirates, alleged criminals they weren’t yet convict of anything just accused of, and from what I saw if they get a good team of lawyers they will spend zero time in jail.

There is only one accusation that may or may not turn out something and that is the laundering charges, the rest is weak and probably will not hold in court.

And if what others make is something to be angry about, well Hollywood and record labels have a lot explaining to do, along with bankers and patent trolls.

I doubt anyone like a social parasite that doesn’t work for a living and expect others to pay them repeatedly for things they already paid once, just because the law say it is legal to do it, it doesn’t mean it is right.

The end of copyrights should be a priority to any country who wants to start any kind of economic growth, that is the one thing that really harms economic activity the exclusion of smaller players from the market and the slow pace of experimentation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

>I’ve heard they are going after the users.

Yeah, well, good luck with that. After their belief in IP addresses forgive me if I’m not too confident in their forensic prowess. Going by the driftnet methodologies of the AAs they’ll haul a large number of dolphins who were backing up their data via the cloud.

hmm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Are you seriously trying to say that those Dolphins trained by the Navy to locate underwater mines that have sensors on their backs secretly REPROGRAMMED the sensors to access TPB?

What on earth would you think they’d download? there’s no dolphin porn on there for one thing (erm…not that I’ve checked, honest!)

hmm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, and anyone that bought a car within the past 30years and DIDN’T have a horrific accident that involved a long hospital stay owes the RIAA $50 billion dollars in lost sales, money which they intend to pass to hospitals (yeah right!) for the “lost sale” you caused them by point blank REFUSING to crash head first into a tree.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Also, for the next time someone tries to lie to you and say pirates aren’t profiting:

[list omitted]

Are you implying that anyone who earns that kind of money is automatically guilty of something?

Viacom, ‘Decimated By Piracy,’ But Its CEO Got The Biggest Raise Of Any Exec Anywhere
As Warner Music Collapses, Its Two Top Execs Got Paid $14 Million
RIAA Two Top Execs Made $4.8 Million In 2009; How Many Musicians Could That Have Funded?

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Also, for the next time someone tries to lie to you and say pirates aren’t profiting…”

Well technically the “pirates” in this case, the people who uploaded and downloaded infringing material, are not profiting. A company that provided a useful service used by 180M people around the world, many quite legitimately, seems to have been profiting nicely. I know the distinction is difficult for some to grasp.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

It’s been quite the week.

In many ways the mask was torn off of the normal goings on of the lobbyists and bag men so common in Washington (and other capital cities).

Chris Dodd’s outrage at the number of legislators running as fast as they can from SOPA/PIPA in the lead up to and aftermath of Wednesday’s go dark day basically telling us what we already knew but had no real direct evidence of. Lobbyists expect that one “bought” legislators will do exactly what they are told to do even if it costs them their seat.

Just to remind us that there are laws in place now that potentially circumvent things like due process and the right to confront your accuser Megaupload was squashed like a bug. And reminders that ACTA is very much alive and well. Still ugly and still too healthy by half.

What did happen was that these entities called the Internet and the World Wide Web flexed their muscles on an issue for the first time in the Western World to topple bills in the US Congress just as they had toppled dictatorships in North Africa and the Middle East and threaten them in Iran and China.

Bills whose sponsors had refused to listen to those affected or the public who they supposedly represented in favour of Hollywood’s bag men. Chief of whom was formerly a member of the US Senate. A man who once stood for an open and free Internet.

Not only does he sell a highly restricted one of questionable legality but he’s sold himself on it too. Thanks to Chris Dodd we know the level of corruption in Washington, DC now.

But, it seems, no amount of corruption can stand up to an enraged and engaged electorate. It also proves the Internet is much more than just a product that can be twisted and regulated at will. It’s now part of the body politic can of who internet citizens are.

Linton says:


The copyright industry needs to sue the Justice Dept to bring back Megaupload ASAP!

No, wait, hear me out:

Rightsholders are owed $500M in actual stolen money, but Megaupload only had $50M in the bank. However, as a going concern Megaupload is a money making MACHINE! Put the site back up promtly on its old domains, operated in trust on behalf whoever the wronged party turns out to have been. It may take 50 years of lawyering to figure out who this is, but quick! put the site back now before anyone reuploads the most popular 1% of content to 26 other filesharing sites.

Now, obviously the prosecution will need the existing hard drives as evidence, but don’t worry, just make a copy and pop it on the internet. If you’re thinking that might be expensive, you couldn’t be more wrong! We all know that Megaupload didn’t provide any kind of useful service, that 100% of their revenues were derived from the theft of U.S. property, and that any monies paid to hosting providers was not really for services rendered but were merely being laundered. So clearly this won’t cost a dime.

But what about all that piracy, you ask? Well, since the aim is to cash in on all those existing links, they don’t need to enable uploads. And they already have the complete database of compaints from rightsholders. Just show an abundance of caution (=complete disregard for fair and authorised use) and delete everything that matches a complained-about file hash. Remember, the aim here is to get something up and running to milk the public for cash, not to be fair and balanced or anything laughable like that. Perhaps they should also try some filename filtering – after all, if a rightsholder can utter the magical True Name of a file, it becomes rightfully theirs to destroy. But should they have to guess only 3 words from the name correctly, or 4? Ah, the difficulties of instituting a balanced copyright system are too much for me! In case there are any infringing files left, perhaps a Justice Department lawyer could monitor the server room, and the first time a given file was requested, she could decide whether or not it was legal. You might think that determining this instantly might be hard, but you’re forgetting that Megaupload makes users wait 45 seconds before the download commences.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro says:

Re: Megaupload

Nailed it in one! If the content providers are ?losing? such huge sums of money from businesses like Megaupload, why the hell don?t they do the exact same thing and get that money for themselves? With the added bonus that, since they actually own the ?intellectual property? in question, they don?t need to ask themselves permission to do it!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Megaupload

that would be the intelligent thing to do, that’s why the entertainment industries haven’t done it. you cant put sense where there isn’t room!
you should also know by now that the money isn’t the issue. it’s sole control of the Internet as a distribution medium that they want! minimize outlay, maximize income and eliminating ALL competition on the way! simples!

Anonymous Coward says:

Explainging the interwebz to others.

Using Tilt a new plugin for Firefox one can export any webpage to see how it is composed of various elements.


I wish there was something like this to show visualy how laws integrates with society, to see clearly what happens and see the relations.

Anonymous Coward says:


Hackasaurus is an inspector and a webeditor, I saw that and the example of the guy putting Valdmor’s image and changing a line in the text to “Valdmor fails to pass majority vote”.

The possibilities, imagine if laws could be viewed and edited like that so everybody could see them, millions of people all participating in hacking the laws of the land, instead of hacking webpages to make funny headlines.

Anonymous Coward says:

The one article I love the most is Chris Dodds lashing out at the president and threatening congress, that is like a present.

You piss off the power that regulates you and open the road to tech lobby money to pour in.

Damn, we need more Chris Dodds in positions of power inside the lobbying machine of the MPAA and the RIAA, they are better than anything anyone could have hoped for, they do more damage that we would ever be able to.

Congress should hold a hearing about copyright terms and propose a law to reduce it just a little like 20 years less just to send a warning shot, of what could happen to them.

Different from pirates, those idiots depend entirely on the government to exist.

Anonymous Coward says:


Copyright should be no more than 7 years with a 3 year extension. It should require you to actively register for it, not have it applied as a default.

10 years is more than enough time to tie up a potential piece of culture for ones own benefit. 10 years (roughly 3652 days)is a long time. A LONG time.
The current copyright term of End of Life + 70 years is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Copyright

The current copyright term of End of Life + 70 years is so ridiculous it boggles the mind.

Repealing the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension is an essential step here.

The calculus is simple. Term lengths have been steadily increasing. I want to see the first derivative go through a zero-crossing and flip sign.

(OK. For pedants and purists: I recognize that we’re talking about a piecewise linear function with step discontinuities. Let us average to a smooth trend before differentiating.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Copyright

Stop speaking French!

Agreed with your first sentence, as it’s the only one I understand. 😉

It was said here on TD and it was something that had been bothering me in greater quantities every time I read it: the apologist disclaimer that seemingly every statement about these bills that “of course, IP theft must be stopped, but…”

First, that the words ‘stealing’ and ‘theft’ are being used by people in the law business to describe something that UNDER THE LAW is not stealing or theft. Those found guilty of copyright infringement are not prosecuted for theft also. Why can’t the correct term be used? Call it what it is, it won’t kill anyone.

Second, that the problems stem from lack of enforcement, when the true root of the issue is with copyright law and its byzantine mess that no average person can grasp and therefore follow. If the law is too difficult to abide with certainty, then the problem lies with the law, not the enforcement of the law or lack thereof.

Aside: WTF does the length of an author’s life have to do with length of a copyright term anyway? I’m supposed to know if someone’s dead or alive and THEN know when their copyright is supposed to expire? How do you get permission from a dead guy? Oh, I’m supposed to know who controls his estate now too?

Ten years from date of publication sounds fair and easily trackable. Everyone knows where they stand at the jump. Only then can we talk reasonably about enforcement.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Copyright

Stop speaking French!

Just look at the picture!

Ten years from date of publication sounds fair

But I do not think it is politically achievable today.

Repealing the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act might be politically achievable now. I actually have serious doubts?find me a Congressman who’s even willing to introduce a bill for repeal!

Pressing for a ten-year term now gets nothing: Instead we continue on the current trend. Copyright keeps ratcheting. And in reaction, more and more people just say, ?Fuck copyright.?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Copyright

Thanks for the picture. I like the colors!

And I realize that realistically, you are correct: the end result of more copyright, which is at its heart a control on the most basic of human behavior, communication, will only result in less respect for it, much less the ability to avoid violating it.

It’s a systemic flaw in the thinking of those whose chronic dependency upon it has made them lazy, weak, stupid and mean: I’d rather have nothing than something. Which I don’t get at all. Is there a chart for that? 😉

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Copyright

I did mean it, but wasn’t terribly clear.

I meant it to mean the mentality of copyright extremist/expansionists that says:

“I’d rather have no one respect copyright than a shorter term of copyright”, or

“I’d rather have nothing than [whatever the market is willing to bear] for downloaded material”, or

“I’d rather wallow in obscurity than have one more fan that may not have paid to hear or watch my [insert creative effort here]”, or

“I’d rather have no one for my advertisers to shill than do the work of providing a service that people would flock to becaused it’s priced realistically and more convenient than unauthorized download sites…”

Like that. Seriously, that’s what I take away from my experiences as a non-pirating person who would rather walk away or do without when content producers could take advantage of technology and respond to markets (me) but WILLINGLY refuse to do so.

They’re so hung up on the *possibility* of copyright infringement that they can’t seem to do their jobs: provide for their market. The tools are there, they’re just too gutless to use them to full advantage – we know this because THEY NEVER TRIED until forced to do so. They went straight to the defensive, litigated instead of innovated, bought legislation instead of competitive advantage…because legislation is apparently cheaper than competing.

Someone like me shouldn’t go around saying “THIS IS WHY PEOPLE PIRATE!” more and more often every week. Those words would never form in my brain if they’d properly attend their markets, but they WILLFULLY refuse to do so.

They’d rather have nothing than something.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Copyright

One point the content industry keeps trying to imply is that infringement is just like theft of physical property like a car or a boat.

OK, so let’s look at physical property for just a second. There are laws against theft. There are numerous resources and technologies in place to prevent theft. Lots of people get caught and punished for theft. Yet, theft still occurs. In fact, Walmart, the world’s largest retailer is quite frequently a very common target and victim of theft. The loss to Walmart from theft is not totally negligible. Yet it doesn’t keep Walmart from raking in massive profits. Now imagine the sort of uproar that would occur should Walmart try to get the sort of laws passed applying to physical property as they do for digital property.

Anonymous Coward says:

I remember Bush Jr. saying “The jobs offshored are not coming back! we need to train people to do other jobs!”

The thing is IP laws are in the way of that, all those people who lost jobs can’t do anything without having to pay rents to IP holders that hoard content and patents to exclude everybody from the market.

THAT is the fraking problem right now!
Monopolies are barriers to a better future and they are called IP now.

hmm (profile) says:

Censored Version:

SOPA was a piece of _________. Anyone who supported it should go __________ themselves.

Uncensored Version:

Sopa was a piece of BAD LEGISLATION. Anyone who supported it should go RE-EXAMINE IT themselves.

See how censorship can totally change the meaning of something? Then again that probably went over the heads of most of the trills on here.

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...