US Olympic Committee Forces 30 Year Old Philidelphia Gyro Restaraunt To Change Its Name
Megaupload To DOJ: You Don't Get To Make Up The Rules That Suit You

Meet The Internet Defense League (And Join It, Too)

Friends of the Revolution

from the defend-the-internet dept

Thu, Jul 19th 2012 07:15am -

A bunch of the folks who were instrumental in the SOPA/PIPA fight have been working together over the last few months to build The Internet Defense League, which is launching today. Techdirt is a founding member, along with a number of other organizations and sites, including Reddit, Mozilla, Cheezburger, EFF, Fark, Imgur and more. The process is being driven by the awesome folks at Fight for the Future, who were the ones behind the American Censorship Day effort during the SOPA fight. The launch is today, in part because today is also the day that the new Batman movie opens — and part of the IDL’s concept is that when the internet is at risk, it can shine a “cat signal” to alert the internet to jump in and do something:

<a href=”
Believe it or not, they’ve actually put together a few of these cat signals in real life, so look around tonight in a few cities and you might see one.

Taking a page from Kickstarter, the IDL has set up various tiers to which you can donate to get your own personal mini-cat signal or a t-shirt or some other fun offerings.

Earlier this year, I wrote about the Hacking Society gathering, put on by Union Square Ventures. During that discussion, Clay Shirky brought up the idea of an “Internet Volunteer Fire Department” and Tiffiniy Cheng, from Fight for the Future, explained the IDL and how they were already working on it. You can watch that discussion to get a sense of the thinking behind this effort:

We’re proud and excited to be a part of this effort. We, like many, hope that the IDL is actually a wasted effort and is never actually needed. But, given what we see happening all the time, it seems unlikely that the IDL will never need to be called into action.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: cheezburger, eff, fark, imgur, internet defense league, mozilla, reddit

136 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
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 “Meet The Internet Defense League (And Join It, Too)”

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

Re: Re:

God no! I am actually laughing out loud. A group like this is excellent, because it forces the people trying to “defend” the internet to actually come behind one group and express themselves directly.

Once that happens, the laughter will set. It will be much easier to take what a group like this publishes and point out the similarities to hippies or perhaps a kibbutz.

There is no sadness today, just a giggle.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

One day you will figure out I don’t work for any big corporations, and that my interest is only my own. Then you may grasp the concept that individual citizens actually support some of what goes against the unlimited freedoms on the internet.

Then you can stop spouting the techdirtcratic party line and start thinking for yourself.

Jeff (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I figured it out a long time ago, but your interest in the internet if fundamentally opposed to mine. I *will* oppose your *all* efforts to control my ability to communicate on the internet; because when I don’t oppose then I lose. Just like the proverbial camel putting his nose in the tent, once you let *some* control in, then all control is possible. There is only one freedom on the internet – the freedom to communicate, and it is only an extension of our ability to communicate with each other. By allowing the corporate masters to dictate the terms, we all lose. By allowing banana republic dictators to set the terms, we all lose.

Which side do you want to be on?

Torg (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I can always talk to the people around me, but do you have any idea how limiting it feels to even think about having that as the only good option? If what you seem to be getting at came to pass, I’d be cut off from almost all of our culture and have to make do with whatever the people who happen to live in the same geographical area as me come up with. Why would I ever want to be restricted to talking to whoever happened to buy a house near my parents or go to the same college I am? How could segregating society in such a manner possibly be acceptable?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“Because SOPA, ACTA, TPP expand copyright control and that’s used to stifle speech?”

You just highlighted the problem: You think that your free speech should include the ability to freely distribute someone else’s protected speech. You want to pull the blanket of free speech onto your side of the bed, leaving everyone else without any covers, and you think this is fine. Any attempt to balance it in your mind is an unfair blocking of your cover use.

Basically, you are a free speech monopolist. You want all the free speech with none of the obligations, obligations are for little people and those who follow the law.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I shouldn’t have to give up MY rights to free speech simply because someone goes “I own that!”

Let me ask you something?

Is it fair to shut down whole websites simply because someone drew a picture of a show they liked (fanart) or wrote a story based on those shows (fanfiction) and they weren’t expecting anything more than simply having people look at their stuff?

You forget, the way to expand culture is to build on stuff that’s already there.

Hip Hop and that style of music already does that.

But, hey, I’m sure that SOPA, ACTA and TPP would NEVER shut down a legitimate genre of music simply because it uses unauthorized samples and remixes music, right?

“Basically, you are a free speech monopolist. You want all the free speech with none of the obligations, obligations are for little people and those who follow the law.”

What obligations?

So long as what I say or do does NOT endanger the freedoms or lives of others, then I can say or do whatever I want.

But, so long as laws and treaties keep getting made to curtail those freedoms and rights that we enjoy, respect for the law will continue to go down by the public at large.

“There is NEVER any need to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security.” – Ron Paul

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

You just highlighted the problem: You think that your free speech should include the ability to freely distribute someone else’s protected speech.

The free speech problems that are a part of that legislation have nothing to do with distributing someone else’s protected speech.

Also, the free speech problems are not the only freedom-related problems with the legislation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Apparently “communicate” somehow includes the right to illegally download someone else’s creative output without paying for it. I hardly think that is what the Founding Father’s had in mind. Yet somehow the entitled generation seems to believe they should get everything for free.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

The Founding Fathers of the United States fought the Revolutionary War to get AWAY from monopolistic businesses that threatened to take everything away from them just to make money.

Also, you seem to forget, until not too long ago, the United States was one of the BIGGEST Copyright Infringers in the world.

Stop trying to put your revisionist B.S. history into the modern world.

You’ll do everyone a favor.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Wrong! Copyright is an artificial monopoly granted by the state, thus the united states wasn’t infringing because they didn’t grant them to foreign works.

But that kind of works in your favor because to the founders viewed copyright from a utilitarian perspective and rejected the idea that you had a moral right to the copyright monopoly and understood that perpetual copyrigth was bad.

It’s why the compyright clause is written as a power granted to congress rather than a mandate in the constitution yet granting a copyright without an expiration date is unconstitutional.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

And I’m smiling at your cute ignorance. The collapse of all SOPA efforts should have taught you something. If you check the member list you’ll see some serious heavyweights there like Mozilla, EFF, Public Knowledge, Reddit and others. Does that ring a bell? I bet not.

Keep laughing sweetie. Just don’t be too mad when the Internet flexes its muscles again against your kind.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You think everyone believes it’s just pirates and “big search” that are concerned, or think the world can be sucked into believing as much if enough money is thrown at the problem, but you know this group is not going to help that kind of propaganda be accepted.

Your lines are easy to read between.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: Re:

So close to being hilarious, then FAIL.
I can see Masnick mincing around in his tights and cape exhorting his brigade of – Tee hee hee. funny.

tinfoil hatters – See here is where you failed. We are not tinfiol hatters, we are freetard, lord high apology pirates. Get with the program.

You must have us confused with Alex Jones.

DannyB (profile) says:

It's a sad day

It’s sad that the internet even needs a defense league.

Something truly revolutionary in the history of humanity. Packets of data can be sent from anyone to anyone else on the planet, instantly, at nearly zero cost, or cost so cheap as to not matter.

These packets can enable all kinds of applications (web, voice, news, radio, commerce, video chatting or conferencing, blogging, etc etc). And yes, communications can be used for good or evil, but that’s not the fault of the technology.

With that new era of communication comes transparency and whistle blowing. Citizens also can “assemble” in ways they couldn’t before without physical assembly.

It also brings disruption of business models that depend on artificial scarcity. The cost of packets on the network is nearly zero.

People who say or do stupid things can now be laughed at by a much larger audiences, much more quickly, providing vast numbers of people endless entertainment pleasure.

People can oppose things like SOPA . . . oh, wait. Nevermind. That was all Google’s doing and just Google alone. Because Google is pro-piracy. Please discontinue subversive thinking now.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 it can shine a "cat signal"

I’d expect it to be both, personally. cats represent the internet fairly well (in as much as anything does, at least), cat rhymes with bat, internet defence league, justice league, batman movie…

it all sort of ties together in a big ball of tie-y… stringy… stuff.

it’s a logical yarnball, i guess?

Baldaur Regis (profile) says:

Re: Re: it can shine a "cat signal"

Gotta go with weneedhelp on this one, Nigel. The idea of lolcatz is instantly recognizable as an internet meme, and the article does mention merch possibilities. The cat shown illoed just isn’t….ironically stupid… enough for a symbol.

Thoughts? How would you describe an idealized lolcat?

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Funny

If there was a link to Reddit your sarcasm might be justified, but it was the embedded video from youtube. The video:

Hacking Society: We Need an Internet Volunteer Fire Department
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=XDTD9laPQWo
and:

Hacking Society: Visualizing the Web’s Hidden Economies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7aQonUFi4

Both show roundtable discussions while not letting the internet join in via the comments.

“Yeah, because they don’t announce right on the site that they have a subreddit” Really? “Right on the site” yeah at the bottom of the page:
Targets

We’ll keep in close touch with groups like the EFF and Public Knowledge to identify threats and opportunities. We’ve also got a subreddit. This will get formalized more soon, but for now we’re definitely targeting ACTA in June and CISPA as it re-emerges in the Senate.

Have a nice go fuck yourself fuckingbra.(probably a useless a-cup.)

Zangetsu (profile) says:

It's a shame that it needs to exist

Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, said that:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us?that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion?that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain?that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom?and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

What he said with regard to the survival of the United States is just as relevant when we talk about the survival of the Internet as a medium for unfiltered communication. Yes, some of that communication is vile filth, but some of it is pure magic. You can’t see one if you don’t see the other.

Voltaire said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Many Americans have embraced that slogan. Many American soldiers have died defending that right. Is the Internet the straw that breaks the camels back? Will soldiers go to war and die, protecting free speech, while the average American sits and home and is fed the information that some small group in a boardroom wants them to hear?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: It's a shame that it needs to exist

This, and particularly every single war we’ve been in since World War 2, and most of the wars before that.

In the final analysis, there are only two reasons that nations engage in war: to steal the resources of another people, or to defend against aggression. The US, in particular, has only very rarely engaged in war in defense.

The aggressors are never honest with their populace about the reason for going to war: they always give some “higher purpose,” such as religion or patriotism, but really, it’s always about the cash.

bob (profile) says:

What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

Somehow I think that the IDL has a very narrow definition of what needs to be protected. This is all just astroturfing for Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. This is why Google supports the EFF with such generous, tax-dodging “gifts” and the IDL is just an extension of it.

Lets say some big company takes your vacation photo and uses it without paying you squat. The IDL will be there claiming that it’s “fair use” and you’re merely trying to censor the Internet by trying to stop people from replicating your photo everywhere.

The organizations involved in the IDL don’t care about individuals rights– unless they’re the so-called right to pirate anything anywhere anytime. The folks in the IDL try to avoid doing anything to defend the hard work of people because that would mean defending copyright and there’s nothing that Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy hate more than is the copyright law and the way it can force them to respect the hard work of the average person.

So expect that the IDL will insist that an ever expanding concept of “fair use” is essential or else the Internet will be broken. Because the billionaires who are paying for the IDL want it that way.

anon says:

Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

LO they did not say this, this is a troll trying to muddy the waters so that people do not get together and use there strength of numbers to protect themselves and the internet as a whole

Saying that fair use can be rather complicated, for instance any company making a profit from using someones art should be paying for it, but news sites can claim fair use as can parody sites.

The main aspect though is that big business cannot take anyone’s content and use it as there sole source of income without paying the content creator.

If i have a site with all of the music in the world and let anyone come to my site to listen to it, as long as i do not make money from the site it seems like it should be fair use.

If use the same site and get ad revenue i am generating income from the content and should be paying the artists, i.e like youtube and other content sites.

The problem comes when we have torrent sites, there we can get anything and it is actually fair use, but artists expect to be paid for there content which is reasonable. If anything the more paid sites we have the better the artists would be compensated as people would rather download content from a site that they know compensates the artist.

But the problem at the moment is that big business has twisted copyright law so much it is being used to stop torrent sites instead of compete with them with a better way to compensate artist.

as an example. If there was a site that provided torrent links to every bit of content out there, and they made sure only quality content was represented with no fake or virus ridden torrents more people would use them, thereby increasing traffic and add revenue and thus being able to compensate artists, even if they has a donate button on every page to donate to the creator of the content i am sure they would make a lot of money, even then if they wanted to they could charge a fee for access to there torrents.

Most if not all of us would rather pay something to compensate the artists if we could , we would pay a subscription fee or view adds but only if there was a good infrastructure and quality content as with torrents.

But this removes the power from the big Hollywood copyright groups to make money controlling the content. They are fighting to stop just anyone from making a profit even if they are paying the artists more than they do at the moment.

As soon as people start realizing this the sooner we can overcome the lies about fair use.

Cory of PC (profile) says:

Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

OK, I’ll be serious on this post, but bear in mind I’m going to comment on your title, not your confusing rant.

Now I believe that anyone can create something without being pirated. I got a plan that will involve selling my book in three different forms, one in digital form, and I’m planning on doing a free sampling of the first few chapters and offering the full version for a very cheap price. And I am considering doing a free event that will enable people to get a copy of my story for free, in either forms, just because I’m willing to try a different

And if I were to look at the word “piracy” as “the act of stealing something and claiming it as my own,” then yes it would be a bad thing. But with everyone getting uptight that people are looking for something that they like for cheap, even free, and these corporations holding these items back because they aren’t getting money… I don’t know how to word it. I do like to get some money on my work, but I don’t want to lock up my work and go suing innocent people of every last cent just because they want to read a new story. If I want to do that, I’ll sue the big corporations you are apparently supporting.

I may have missed the point, but I tried to decipher whatever the freak you’re saying. Please, for the love of God, add links and some examples to back your claims! It might make you appear smarter, but each time that you appear, your posts make us dumber from reading your rants!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

And if I were to look at the word “piracy” as “the act of stealing something and claiming it as my own,” then yes it would be a bad thing.

How about piracy as the act of obtaining something of value from another without compensating the rightful owner.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

If you release something people feel deserves compensation they will happily throw money at you.

The ability to force people into paying for something before they can make the judgement is disappearing. Sorry industries that got rich buy shoveling crap into people heads.

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style says:

Re: Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

“How about piracy as the act of obtaining something of value from another without compensating the rightful owner.”

And that’s an even stupider definition. I quite often obtain something of value without compensating the rightful owner. I’ll give even point out how there’s no copyright infringement on my part whatsoever, before you call me a pirate/freetard/thief.

I on a daily basis watch television without paying anyone to do so. I also on a daily basis listen to music for free. I do so by listening to the radio in the car or through the use of various apps on my phone (iHeartRadio/Pandora/Slacker/etc.). I also routinely walk into grocery stores and am given samples of various food substances.

Now, before you say, “Yeah well advertising or blah blah blah”, keep in mind your definition of piracy just stated moments ago. Obtaining something of value without compensating the rightful owner. I DID AND DO NOT PAY ANYONE TO LISTEN TO THE RADIO (ESPECIALLY NOT THE OWNERS OF THE MUSIC WHICH WOULD BE VARIOUS LABELS). I ALSO DO NOT PAY THE MAKERS OF THE VARIOUS FOOD PRODUCTS I AM SAMPLING. I ALSO DO NOT PAY ANY STUDIOS TO WATCH THE SHOWS THEY PRODUCE. So yeah, I meet your definition on a regular basis.

Someone says:

Re: Re: Re:2 What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but unless you are only watching free over the air broadcasts, you pay your cable company to watch television. That money is used to pay for programming.

As far as the radio goes. Music artists have agreed to allow their songs to be played over the radio, as well as the various other radio like programs. Music artists haven’t given permission to have their songs freely copied and shared by anyone for any purpose. (I’m speaking generally, obviously some artists have given such permission)

Perhaps a better definition for piracy is “the act of obtaining, without permission, something that was the result of the work of somebody else.”

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style says:

Re: Re: Re:3 What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

I’m not going to correct you one way or another, because at the end of the day, I was replying to the AC who gave this definition of piracy, “obtaining something of value from another without compensating the rightful owner”. End of story as far as I’m concerned. Am I, even if paying for cable or listening to advertisements (and I notice you left out free samples) COMPENSATING THE RIGHTFUL OWNER? Answer, a most affirmative no.

Which ends that bit as it relates to the original AC’s point.

As for your definition, guess what I do for a living? Or better said one of the things I do for a living. I work in IT. Know what I do on a routine basis? I obtain WITHOUT PERMISSION something that was the result of the work of somebody else. Either firsthand knowledge or software of one sort of another. I do not ask permission to use Microsoft Windows/Office, but we do have licenses for it. But I am not directly asking permission to use it. Nor am I directly asking permission from anyone for any information related to problems that arise in the IT field and information on how to solve them.

Now, you may say my license to use Windows/Office is enough. But note, you said obtaining something WITHOUT PERMISSION that is the result of somebody else’s work. Who’d you ask for permission to use the internet? Was it any of the guys who helped build the internet? Because it is very much a result of their work. In which case, way to go you pirate. And did you ask Tesla for permission to use alternating current? Because it’s as a result of his work that you even have the electricity you need to power the computer you’re using to respond to me. Want me to go on? I’m more than happy to.

See how this works? Bad definitions are bad. Piracy has a definition. Suffice it to say it involves water. Copyright infringement can also be directly defined and has. There’s no need for any of this BS, beyond the AC trying to make a point, which I quite obviously showed to be both erroneous and stupid, much like the AC.

Someone says:

Re: Re: Re:4 What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

If that’s the end of the story for you, then that’s cool. Since this is an open discussion though, I was simply contributing to the topic.

As far as not compensating the rightful owners, that’s not true at all. You may not be directly giving them your money, but by paying for your cable subscription, you are in effect compensating the creators. Free samples fall under permissions that are granted by content creators. They agree to allow the cable companies (or whoever) to distribute free samples.

You don’t have to ask permission for something in order to receive it. Your argument is total nonsense. If I create a piece of music, and stipulate that anybody can download it whenever they want, it’s not necessary for every single person to then come back and ask me if they can download the music whenever they want.

So, the licenses are in fact enough because they are permissions granted by Microsoft that dictate how the software can be used. I’m granted permission to use the internet by way of paying my Internet Service Provider. The rest of your examples fall under my same argument. Asking for permission to do something is not necessary to be given permission to do that same something.

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style says:

Re: Re: Re:5 What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

How is the argument nonsense? You said without asking permission. License or not, I have not directly asked permission per your own definition. Thus, I’m committing piracy per your definition.

Also, even if I pay a cable company, I am not directly compensating the rightful owner. This is how that AC usually means things. If you aren’t giving your money directly to them then you’re stealing.

The rest is the same. You stated a definition that by default is quite easily not met in almost every single situation. Thus, piracy has been committed by everyone not asking permission PER YOUR DEFINITION. Now, it might be nonsensical the manner in which I’ve explained things, but that’s only to show how I’m not keeping with your definition. If you see fit to revise your definition of “piracy” then I’ll see fit to revise my examples. In the ones you stated, which were revisions of mine, you are getting or asking permission from someone in control of something, be it a software or internet service, but they are a mere proxy or are allowing you to do so in a proxy-like manner. Ala licenses or agreements, but you at no point directly ask permission of the person who created said things. Again, I’m just keeping in line with your very specific definition.

Which is why I said, “bad definitions are bad”. And regardless, piracy has been defined. Ditto copyright infringement. So there’s no real need to even go down this line beyond the AC starting it. But, suffice it to say, his definition of piracy is not even remotely correct. And luckily for the rest of us, the Supreme Court has ruled what is considered copyright infringement.

Someone says:

Re: Re: Re:6 What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

I did not say without asking permission. Look at the original response again. What I said was “the act of obtaining, without permission, something that was the result of the work of somebody else.” The word asking wasn’t in there.

Someone says:

Re: Re: Re:6 What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

I agree with you that piracy has been legally defined. However, isn’t the major issue that many people have that they no longer believe the legal definition coincides with the realities of how content is produced and distributed?

If that’s the case, then shouldn’t be we attempting to come up with a new definition?

anon says:

Re: Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

The problem for any content creators is that there is a lot of competition out there, for every book with a price on it there are hundreds you can get free.

If anything the future is free with a donation button, that’s it, that’s the only way to compete with free.

I searched a torrent site for a book i wanted to read but it was not there, that tells me a few things, one it is not very popular and two i will not be reading it.

If i could i would be donating to authors but hey they do not have that button anywhere for me to donate yet , so until they do i will continue reading free books.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

Disjointed, illogical, blind rant as usual. No IP-literate person would EVER suggest that commercial use of a vacation snap is fair use; but it’s a wonderfully outrageous claim, designed to make like-minded nutters’ blood boil. And it’s amusing to see “Big Search” vilified in favor of “Big Legacy Entertainment”. Since “non-Big” artists never actually get paid by “Big Music”… since “Big Films'” books are cooked to prevent showing profits for distribution to writers… how about taking a stance that favors the “non-Bigs” — individuals — instead of shilling for corporations?

Pixelation says:

Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

“Somehow I think that the IDL has a very narrow definition of what needs to be protected.”

That’s a bad thing? Why your precious SOPA and PIPA, etc are making such a stir is they are trying to do too much. They go too far and make a gifted monopoly trump the rights of others. Copyright is a gift not a God given right. If the price of a “free” and “open” internet is someone might take my vacation photo and use it to make money, so be it. There are already laws in place to deal with that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

“What about my freedom to create without being pirated?”

You can create whatever you want without it being pirated. But just as it has always been, you lose control once you release your creation in the world. That has always been the case and will always be the case no matter what laws are made. Just because you want something doesn’t make it a right.

Michael says:

Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

OK, lets hear your plan to secure against piracy? THERE IS NO WAY TO SECURE AGAINST IT. SO your argument is really pointless. If it is on the net, it will be pirated if we choose to do so. You can spy on and catch the ones who aren’t savvy, but if I choose to be anonymous, I am anonymous. I can be invisible on the net any time I choose. The only way to not have your “property” copied on the net is to not have it on the net. Period.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: What about my freedom to create without being pirated?

Hello, bob! I almost thought for a moment that you had died or something. Where were you when BREIN failed to pay an artist for music they asked him to compose for your pro-collection society propaganda, or when Evan Stone was slammed by courts for trying to overstep his protection of “independent producers”? Or did you shit your pants when you realised that your side was not infallible and had to run to Big IP to have them change your diaper? Don’t worry, I swear that the trolls have been breeding under the bridge. You can get them to help soothe your butthurt (or add some more, if you know what I mean, you John-Steele-defending “independent producer”).

ken (profile) says:

We Are ALL Stakeholders Now

Copyright used to be the sole domain of professional publishers. They were able to make laws with impunity because there was not a perception that they effected the public. Even today with international negotiations the content industry are considered the only “stakeholders”.

In the internet age that narrow view of “stakeholder” no longer applies. We are all stakeholders now and our voice must be heard.

Anonymous Coward says:

We Are ALL Stakeholders Now

Copyright used to be the sole domain of professional publishers. They were able to make laws with impunity because there was not a perception that they effected the public. Even today with international negotiations the content industry are considered the only “stakeholders”.

In the internet age that narrow view of “stakeholder” no longer applies. We are all stakeholders now and our voice must be heard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Hmmm… when I clicked on the “Donate” button on the site, I got “You have asked Firefox to connect
securely to donate.internetdefenseleague.org, but we can’t confirm that your connection is secure.”

WTF is going on? Firefox is all but throwing its body in front of me to get me to stop going to the donate page!

“What Should I Do?

If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn’t continue.”

Oookay, is someone causing problems for the site to stop people donating?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

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 »

US Olympic Committee Forces 30 Year Old Philidelphia Gyro Restaraunt To Change Its Name
Megaupload To DOJ: You Don't Get To Make Up The Rules That Suit You
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...