Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet

from the kudos dept

We've already covered the list of companies who support censoring the internet, but there were a couple of other interesting ones on the list that deserved a separate discussion. Greg Sandoval over at News.com did a nice job of reading between the lines to notice that Nike & Adidas were prominently featured in the letter and suggesting that this was targeted at Senator Ron Wyden, who was the only Senator who stood up and said that COICA was a bad idea, and blocked it from being rushed through last year. Wyden, of course, is from Oregon, and Nike is based in Portland and has tremendous influence in Oregon. Adidas also has a large operation in Oregon.

Sandoval also got a comment from Wyden's office, suggesting the Senator is still standing up for what's right, rather than bowing to political pressure:
"Senator Wyden has long worked with U.S. industry on combating the trafficking of counterfeit goods like fake shoes and apparel. But going after trade in real merchandise can be done in a variety of effective ways, like inspecting shipping containers at American ports of entry to identify and seize fake merchandise.

"Unfortunately, the content industry has piggybacked on the legitimate efforts of apparel designers to combat counterfeit goods and now threaten the integrity of the Internet as a means to combat intellectual property infringement. The Internet is too important to our economy and to advancing American values to be inappropriately regulated and censored under the guise of protecting IP, which is why Congress and the Administration should be as cautious as it is surgical when it aims its sights on the Internet."
Nicely said. Hopefully he sticks to it and doesn't cave in to the pressure.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Kevin (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 2:10pm

    Well Said.

    I can agree with that statement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 2:34pm

    The list of company's that want to censor the internet, are on my list of company's that I will never do business with again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Baker, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 2:42pm

    I didn't vote for him but

    I think I would now ....
    I Liked how his son "Stole Content" from Biden and Biden bribed the poor lad to get it back. A lesson on how Biden operates.

    From The Oregonian:
    ----------------------------------------------------
    We were this close to having a national crisis on our hands when Vice President Joe Biden stepped in to solve the problem.

    Just before the swearing in ceremonies for U.S. Senators, the 3-year old son of Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) snatched the script out of the Vice Presidentís hands and refused to give it back.

    After repeated attempts to get the script back failed, the proverbial light bulb suddenly went on over Bidenís head.

    He pulled a mint out of his pocket, asked the boy to guess which hand the candy was in, and grabbed his script while the lad was pondering the answer to that question.
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Unconfirmed reports say Biden learned this technique from his experience of taking and holding onto others needs until payment was given.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    trilobug, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 2:42pm

    Aren't You a Breath of Fresh Air.

    That's pretty cool, perhaps all is not lost - lol.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 2:50pm

    The sad part is that the continued existence of widespread piracy (in both senses) isn't a positive for the economy. What it does is divert money in other directions, mostly away from the US economy.

    It sort of works in the same manner as illegal drugs. While most people see nothing wrong with a little pot, they don't take a moment to realize that the money is leaving the US economy and not coming back. It's like a tax on stupid.

    Piracy benefits those who knock things off, it doesn't help those who create, and the money certainly doesn't stay in the economy. Diverting money away from the tax base and into the hands of those outside the economy isn't to anyones benefit.

    Sounds like the Senator needs a lesson in economics. Cue TD!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 2:56pm

      Re:

      If they legalized pot then the money would stay, no?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:07pm

        Re: Re:

        Not if pot was free.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:21pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I am not following you.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Black Patriot (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Why would it be free if it was legalized?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            misterdoug (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 9:57pm

            Why would it be free if it was legalized?

            Because anybody who wanted it could grow it.
            And if they didn't want to do that they could buy it from an American grower. The only thing that makes marijuana cost effective to import is the fact that it's illegal.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 8:51am

              Re: Why would it be free if it was legalized?

              You are correct. If you could grow it openly, everyone and their dog would have a pot plant or two growing on their balconies, and it would all be free (total cost involves soil and water, as the seeds would be very easy to obtain and sort of self supporting).

              Legalizing something doesn't suddenly fix the economy. It can often break it worse than it is already.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Okay fine - but imagine the potato chip companies!

          And that's kind of the point. Saying something causes losses to a particular industry is very different from saying it harms the economy

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chris-Mouse (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:26pm

      Re:

      diverting money out of which economy? The counterfieters manufacture goods offshore, and keep the profits offshore to avoid paying US taxes. Guess what, those big companies do the exact same thing.
      There are reasons to want to stop counterfeiting, but the diversion of money out of the US economy is not one of them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Designerfx (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:36pm

      Re:

      uh what?

      why did an anonymous troll have to wax political?

      piracy benefits the creators of the content, but not as much as if they were to actually release the things the consumers wanted.

      Meanwhile, the analogy with weed isn't even remotely accurate either.

      this isn't magic.

      anon needs to learn what business is in 2011, not in 1920.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      cc (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:46pm

      Re:

      To say that piracy is hurting the economy is a wild assertion that you really need to back up with some evidence. Moreover, piracy is actually not the problem, but a symptom.

      The problem is that the economy has come to rely too much on intellectual (read: imaginary) property. Isn't the current economic crisis the result of relying on imaginary property (albeit of a different kind)?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:52pm

      Re:

      I say piracy helps keep the money in the house and not going to corporations that are foreigners.

      It sort of works in the same manner as illegal drugs. While most people see nothing wrong with a little pot, they don't take a moment to realize that the money is leaving the US economy and not coming back. It's like a tax on stupid.


      Or the government should have realized is wasting money on the "War On Drugs" campaign and do something about it, like legalize it and regulate it.

      Piracy benefits those who knock things off, it doesn't help those who create, and the money certainly doesn't stay in the economy. Diverting money away from the tax base and into the hands of those outside the economy isn't to anyones benefit.


      Your vague definition of piracy is hardly all true, digital piracy benefits society and artists of all levels according to some people, piracy on the seas is bad it kills people and damage real property, imaginary goods on the other hand are indestructible have no maintenance costs and are not even taxed, what could piracy of imaginary goods do to them?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nick Taylor, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 4:38pm

      You haven't really thought that through have you?

      Forgetting for the moment that you're conflating file-sharing with piracy... and that you have no evidence whatsoever that either diverts money out of the US (as though that 5% of the population is the only 5% that matters) economy...

      ... forgetting that...

      .. trying to conflate it with "the (utterly disasterous) war on drugs"?

      "It sort of works in the same manner". Er... No it fucking doesn't.

      How do you know that file-sharing isn't acting like payola-free radio? You know... the radio that "those who create" had no hope of getting onto without some big company behind them?

      Did you know that pre-napster, only 3% of artists signed to major labels made more than $600 a year?

      Did you know that "pirates" aka, the people who work for free to distribute and evangelise about music, spend more money than those who don't?

      Had you stopped to think about what other demands there are on people's (stagnant) wages? Games? phone-bills? CC-card repayments? Monster music tours (eg: U2, $300 million), fucking housing prices? Insurance payments? Student loans?

      --

      How does that fit into the "economics lesson" that you'd like to give the Senator?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:41pm

      Re:

      What it does is divert money in other directions, mostly away from the US economy.

      So does outsourcing the production of DVD's to China or Hong Kong, or outsourcing animation to studios in South Korea. Yet studios do this on a daily basis.

      And it's not like the money consumers would have spent, just vanishes. They spend it on other things, which benefits the economy.

      Moreover, those "street vendors" are theoretically hawking their wares in America. Why aren't their wages being counted as stimulating the economy?

      Maybe the counterfeiters should do their own version of those idiotic anti-piracy PSA's. "Every time you get a DVD at Best Buy, a street vendor loses his job. Think of the street vendors!"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:55pm

        Re: Re:

        Karl, even when stuff is "outsourced", the key money still flows into the IP holder's native country.

        Most street vendors are working for organized crime of one sort or another, and most often the money goes right back outside of the country.

        And it's not like the money consumers would have spent, just vanishes. They spend it on other things, which benefits the economy.

        The economy grows as the money cycles more often. Money that stays in the economy cycles. Money that leaves does not. Eliminate a cycle, and you lose that part of the economy. You lose the jobs that go with it, you lose all of that stuff. Cycling is key. Kill a cycle, lose some jobs.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 6:06pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The native country wouldn't be the Cayman Islands would it?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 9:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Karl, even when stuff is "outsourced", the key money still flows into the IP holder's native country.

          It flows into the IP holder's pockets, not their "native country." If the outsourcing decreases the amount they spend in the country, the country loses. And, of course, that's exactly what it does, or else they wouldn't outsource in the first place.

          By the way, many IP holders are foreign-owned. For example, only one of the Big Four music labels is from the United States.

          Most street vendors are working for organized crime of one sort or another,

          Most vendors are working for organized crime? That's BS. Some are, sure, but a bunch are just poor folks who found an illicit way to make some cash.

          and most often the money goes right back outside of the country.

          Really? Street vendors don't have to pay rent? They don't pay for food or clothes or cars or cell phones or iPods? They spend no money whatsoever?

          Sounds like a sweet gig. How can I become one?

          Money that stays in the economy cycles. Money that leaves does not.

          You left out money that comes in to the economy.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 8:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Karl, please consult "trade imbalance, US / China" and you will start to understand the problem.

            The amount of money flowing into the US economy is so little compared to what flows out.

            Really? Street vendors don't have to pay rent? They don't pay for food or clothes or cars or cell phones or iPods? They spend no money whatsoever?


            Most street vendors of this nature operate illegally, selling product for someone else (think street corner drug dealer, they never have any real money). The money then flows back up the chain to where the counterfeit materials are made. Hint: those rarely happen in the US.

            If you try to think of it in terms of a normal business, buying inventory and taking the profits, you fail the test. The street corner guys are making a very few dollars for an incredible level of risk, and the guys making the real coin aren't keeping the money in the US.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 11:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Karl, please consult "trade imbalance, US / China" and you will start to understand the problem.

              Oh, trust me, I do. But piracy has little or nothing to do with this trade imbalance. Don't blame piracy, blame Wal-Mart.

              And, again, lots of movie studios and music labels (who are themselves foreign-owned) use overseas production as well, so they're also contributing to the trade imbalance.

              Most street vendors of this nature operate illegally, selling product for someone else (think street corner drug dealer, they never have any real money). The money then flows back up the chain to where the counterfeit materials are made. Hint: those rarely happen in the US.

              I imagine street vendors are roughly the same demographic as those guys that sell, um, "dropped" products from the backs of vans. Sure, some work for organized crime, but most are just poor folks who make money from stuff they could get their friends to "acquire" from warehouses.

              And there's really no indication that foreign nationals are the majority of counterfeiters. I've never bought a counterfeit anything, but I imagine that lots of these operations are by a group of citizens with access to the Internet and a bunch of DVD burners. It may be "organized crime," but it's American organized crime.

              It's probably different with counterfeit apparel, but then again, pretty much all clothes are produced overseas.

              The street corner guys are making a very few dollars for an incredible level of risk, and the guys making the real coin aren't keeping the money in the US.

              Well, under the label system, recording artists are also "making a very few dollars for an incredible level of risk." (Except for the "risk" part, that is also true of record store employees - as I know from experience.) Yet that industry is allowed to trot out the "billions of jobs lost" argument. From a purely economic (not legal) standpoint, if they can do it, then counterfeiters can do it, too. A guy who earns $28K/year is putting an equal amount into the economy, whether he's a street vendor or a label musician.

              The thing is, some of your arguments have merit. But none of them have to do with counterfeiting per se. You're not arguing that people shouldn't buy counterfeits, you're arguing that they should only buy American counterfeits.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 9:05pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                If they bought American knock offs, they might as well just buy the real thing, because the price will be about the same.

                The street corner guy selling counterfeit goods isn't making 28k a year. He likely isn't even making minimum wage, but risks fines, lawsuits, and going to jail.

                There is a lot to the deal. It isn't as simple as black and white. Politicians try to explain it in black and white, but there is much grey around the edges.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Karl (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:28pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The street corner guy selling counterfeit goods isn't making 28k a year.

                  Just curious, how do you know this?

                  I'm not saying it's false, I'm genuinely curious.

                  I have known a couple street vendors, and they make about $28K per year. Of course, the ones I knew weren't selling counterfeit products.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Karl (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The street corner guy selling counterfeit goods isn't making 28k a year.

                  I did a bit of Googling, and the only story I could find is this one:
                  New York City Chinese Immigrant Street Vendors are Charged With Medicaid Fraud, Tax Fraud, Selling Counterfeit Goods

                  Apparently, they did not do too badly:
                  According to the HRA, all 11 defendants had been receiving Medicaid benefits while owning multiple expensive homes, luxury vehicles, and multiple bank accounts.


                  So, they were definitely pumping a bit of money into the national economy.

                  Now, one thing to consider is the cost to taxpayers. Street vendors obviously don't pay taxes on merchandise, and as this story shows, they often scam social services.

                  The thing is, they would be costing the taxpayers this money if they weren't selling counterfeits. So - from a purely economic perspective - it's still a win.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      misterdoug (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 10:06pm

      Re:

      If foreign counterfeiting of products like Nike shoes drains [this much money] out of the U.S. economy, and industrial outsourcing by those same companies drains off [*** THIS *** MUCH *** MONEY] I can certainly see why we would want to focus on the knockoffs.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 2:58pm

    OIC, so counterfeiting shoes is somehow much worse than music piracy?

    Bzzt. Sorry, no.

    Wyden is nothing but a hypocritical douchenozzle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:04pm

      Re:

      OIC, so counterfeiting shoes is somehow much worse than music piracy?

      It is most definitely different. Whether it is worse is another (probably pointless) debate entirely.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:47pm

      Re:

      Counterfeiting shoes is certainly much worse than casual individual filesharing. It's different if we are talking about organized commercial piracy - but that's the issue. The progression of shifty arguments sort of goes like this:

      "We must stop counterfeit drugs which seriously harm people" ->
      "We must stop counterfeit items like shoes and drugs, which seriously harm people" ->
      "We must stop counterfeiting, which seriously harms people"
      "We must stop piracy and counterfeiting, which seriously harms people"

      See how that works?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 8:56am

        Re: Re:

        Prove that it doesn't harm anyone. I dare you. You will fail. Even the might TD overlords can't do it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          vivaelamor (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 1:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Prove that it doesn't harm anyone. I dare you. You will fail. Even the might TD overlords can't do it."

          It is great that upon reading this comment people can think back to the previous posts with the same snowflake and remove all doubt as to whether they should be taken seriously.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gabriel Tane (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:53pm

      Re:

      I would be surprised at such a blatant ad hom attack against someone that sees things differently than you, but I give up expecting more from you.

      Troll on.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:34pm

      Re:

      OIC, so counterfeiting shoes is somehow much worse than music piracy?

      If the money from counterfeit shoes goes into the hands of organized crime - then yes, absolutely.

      If consumers are tricked into buying an inferior product - then yes, absolutely.

      Since counterfeit shoes cannot possibly have First Amendment protection or a fair use defense - then yes, absolutely.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:43pm

        Re: Re:

        Organized crime? What? Just more nonsense.

        And copyright infringement isn't protected by the First Amendment. Sorry.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 6:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Karl didn't say copyright infringement is protected. But if any of the content does "possibly have First Amendment protection or a fair use defense" then there is an issue.

          That's the point - if there is any legal possibility of protection, censorship without a trial becomes prior restraint. It's very straightforward.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 8:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Organized crime? What? Just more nonsense.

          I don't know how true it is, but ICE and others have been claiming for years now that counterfeiting aids organized crime. In fact, according to INTERPOL, the money from counterfeit goods sometimes fund terrorist groups.

          So yeah, definitely worse than some teenage kid pirating an MP3.

          And copyright infringement isn't protected by the First Amendment. Sorry.

          Material that is potentially infringing is definitely protected by the First Amendment. It doesn't lose its protection until it is determined to be infringing.

          Unlike, say, counterfeit shoes.

          Sorry.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 5:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

            oh, there goes Karl again. Making up delusional quotes about law. LOL

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Gabriel Tane (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 5:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

              oh, there goes Anonymous again. Making ad hominim attacks and offering not a single shred of proof that he even knows what the hell he's talking about.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 3:01pm

    Nike is based in Beaverton, not Portland.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mike, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 4:55pm

    Ridiculous

    How can you inspect every individually purchased package that comes into the country via online sites? And how would you identify whether each package is counterfeit or legit?

    The only reasonable method is for companies like Merck, Nike, NFL, etc to work with the authorities to identify the websites selling their IP illegally. Then block them off. Cut off their domain access. Cut off their funding.

    What does Internet freedom have to do with breaking the law by purchasing and accessing illegally?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bruce Ediger (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:04pm

      Re: Ridiculous

      How does Internet Freedom have anything to do with this particular issue?

      Because the super-draconian measures proposed to counteract purchasing and accessing illegally have effects far beyond merely dealing with counterfeits of physical goods. The measures proposed limit speech on the internet, limiting speech is probably never a good thing. The measures proposed limit legitimate copying, never a good thing. The measures proposed make taxpayers enforce a private company's privilege, arguably a bad thing, the measures proposed keep ideas and implementations of ideas out of the public domain, a bad thing.

      Anything else?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:46pm

        Re: Re: Ridiculous

        No they don't.

        You've just bought into Masnck's bullshit FUD, that's all.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Bruce Ediger (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 9:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

          Nice unsupported assertion. How about a relevant argument, pointing out flaws in my assertion or reasoning? Or some links, or something?

          Otherwise, why did you bother following up?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Gabriel Tane (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 5:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

            Because that's his M.O. Don't hold your breath for any actual proof... the only thing this guy ever brings in is the misapplication of Arcara v Cloud Books. And he hasn't even done that in a while.

            He has a repeated history of statements that would lead you to believe that his word should be truth and law. And if you disagree, well then, you're just dumb or only deserve a response of "LOL".

            Anonymous is one of our more prolific trolls.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 2:16am

          Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

          It's not FUD.

          MMR-autism was blown up into FUD. HIV was blown into FUD. Obamacare was blown up into FUD.

          AS for ACTA or PIPT, that's not FUD, that's seeing potential logical consequences.

          Try again.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 6:39pm

        Re: Re: Ridiculous

        Bruce, you may want to reach in and pull the hook out, because TD got you solid on this one, hook line and sinker.

        There isn't some massive censorship deal here. This isn't some collection of jackboot thugs coming in and killing your children because you dare speak a word. It isn't anything like that.

        It is the government helping to enforce the laws, justly passed by the government(s) of the day.

        Calling it "free speech" is a nice way to rally the troops, but it isn't about speech, it's about taking someone else's IP and spreading it around without permission, often for profit (monetary or "cool kid" standing). It isn't about what any of these people wrote in blogs, it's about the steps they took to help people pirate music.

        Once you get a grip on that basic idea, and stop getting tricked into a free speech discussion, things make much more sense.

        The government is there to enforce the laws, all laws. Piracy isn't just a contractual issue, it can also be a criminal activity. That is another thing you need to understand.

        TD (and the Senator) are attempting to frame the discussion in a certain way, leaving out a lot of information, glossing over the bad parts, and trying to try a 1st and 4th amendment bow around it all. It's dishonest, but then again, the whole process of pirating someone elses work is pretty dishonest.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 8:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

          It isn't about what any of these people wrote in blogs, it's about the steps they took to help people pirate music.

          Tell that to the music blogs whose domain names were seized by ICE.

          That was censorship, plain and simple.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 9:39pm

          Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

          It is the government helping to enforce the laws, justly passed by the government(s) of the day.


          If that were the case, there would be a lawsuit and a trial. Not a seizure.

          Calling it "free speech" is a nice way to rally the troops, but it isn't about speech, it's about taking someone else's IP and spreading it around without permission, often for profit (monetary or "cool kid" standing). It isn't about what any of these people wrote in blogs, it's about the steps they took to help people pirate music.

          You mean the blogs that the VPs of various music labels SENT THEIR MUSIC TO *asking them* to post it to their blogs?

          Uh, yes, that's a free speech issue.

          The government is there to enforce the laws, all laws. Piracy isn't just a contractual issue, it can also be a criminal activity. That is another thing you need to understand.

          Sure. And the way you determine criminal activity is after a trial.

          I find it amusing how the ICE defenders still can't seem to admit this simple fact.

          Why do you hate due process?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            misterdoug (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 10:21pm

            Due Process

            You mean like Congress extending the length of copyright because a Disney copyright is about to expire? Yeah, that's due process.

            You mean the law that placed every audio recording made before 1972 under copyright until 2087, including material that had already been public domain for many years? Sure, due process again.

            You mean cutting text from MPAA emails and pasting it directly into legislation, complete with spelling errors? Yep, due process!

            If you want to look for a lack of due process, start with Congress.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 5:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

            The ICE seizures have stood Masnick.

            When are you going to pay up the $500 you owe MusiCares?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Hephaestus (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 10:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

              "The ICE seizures have stood Masnick."

              Got a question, when did someone go infront of a judge seeking their domain name back??

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 11:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

              The ICE seizures have stood Masnick.


              Um, what?

              The terms of our deal were that we would see if any of the 5 named sites that I mentioned challenged the seizures, and then see how the courts responded -- waiting until the highest court reviewing the issue ruled.

              None of that has happened yet. So bizarre.

              Why would you now lie and claim that the seizures have "stood" when the sites haven't even been given a chance to respond?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Hephaestus (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 8:10am

          Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

          "and trying to try a 1st and 4th amendment bow around it all."

          You forgot the 14th amendment.

          So that three amendments that this law and these seizures have or will violate. Why don't we just scrap the entire document and force man woman and child on earth to pay a $2,500 USD yearly fee based on what these IP types say they are loosing due to piracy ...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Hephaestus (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 8:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous

          "and trying to try a 1st and 4th amendment bow around it all."

          You forgot the 14th amendment.

          So thats three amendments that this law and these seizures have or will violate(d). Why don't we just scrap the entire document and force every man woman and child on earth to pay a $2,500 USD yearly fee based on what these IP types say they are loosing due to piracy ...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mike, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:13pm

    Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct

    If you want to open a legitimate free speech website, you are always able to do so. That has always been the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bruce Ediger (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:31pm

      Re: Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct

      But things like COICA and ACTA would change that - mere accusations of infringement would be enough to shut down a website, infringing or not.

      We're letting "intellectual property" override free speech with this kind of legislation.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:49pm

        Re: Re: Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct

        No they wouldn't.

        You've just bought into Masnick's bullshit FUD, that's all.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          velox (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 7:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct

          Until you give a cogent argument and specifics how COICA and ACTA will not have a 4th amendment significance, you are not convincing.
          A contradictory "Is not". style of argument unsupported by facts won't score you a win in very many debates.
          If you think this isn't a concern, then give us specific facts.

          What I understand about proposed legislation is that it would provide incentive (and legal protection from lawsuits) for private entities (ISP's) to monitor traffic using whatever methodology necessary including deep packet inspection. If the ISP finds what it judges to be illegal activity then the ISP is empowered to cut off service. This puts the ISP in the position of being policeman, judge, jury, and executioner. There is no due process. No trial. No examination of the facts through a public process. No right to a defense. If this is not legal for the government to do, then how is it possible for the government to authorize a private entity to do for it that which is not constitutional for it to do on it's own.
          In short. Please explain how this does not run afoul of the 4th amendment.

          BTW -- don't think that I just got all of this from TD. Just last week I heard a member of Congressman Adam Schiff's staff imply in a panel discussion that Representative Schiff was in favor of empowering ISP's to do exactly this.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Mike, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 5:51pm

        Re: Re: Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct

        That is wrong. Someone who is a Chinese citizen has no obligation to follow American law. If someone starts a website in China that is illegal as ruled by an American judge who examines it, they have no right to operate their business online via American ISPs and American payment processors.

        What are you going to do? Extradite every Chinese seller pushing fakes?

        Free speech is not selling illegal merchandise on the web. That's just illegal. You can't use free speech to shield every criminal because they might at some point have something legitimate to say.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 8:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct

          What are you going to do? Extradite every Chinese seller pushing fakes?

          Or, you could just examine shipments that are imported into this country, to make sure there are no counterfeit goods in there.

          You know, exactly what they're doing right now.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2011 @ 8:08pm

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 9:43pm

    Why troll here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    misterdoug (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 9:47pm

    Like other freedoms, freedom of speech is great as long as the people with the most money get the most of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 9:48pm

    Why troll here?

    Sorry for the duplicate.

    Why does the website Techdirt attract such dedicated and persistent trolls? I don't get it. The position advocated by Mike Masnick in the articles that get the most trolling is a fairly minority position. I'd hazard that most people don't think about "intellectual property" a whole lot, and that most people don't read Techdirt.

    I'd also hazard that Masnick's articles aren't doing much to convert the heathen as it were. So, the automatic gainsaying of whatever position the Trolls are against probably doesn't really matter that much in the long run.

    In conclusion, why troll here, especially anonymously?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      misterdoug (profile), Jan 18th, 2011 @ 10:29pm

      Re: Why troll here?

      It's the internets - any political topic is an automatic troll magnet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 5:41am

      Re: Why troll here?

      Techdirt definition of troll: anyone that isn't a freetard.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Gabriel Tane (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 8:31am

        Re: Re: Why troll here?

        Techdirt definition of a troll: anyone who makes ridiculous ad-hominim attacks against people who are making their cases with supporting links and references, while replying with "because I say so" mentality without anything to back it up.

        Sound familiar Anonymous?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 9:00am

      Re: Why troll here?

      Actually, there are few people who disagree with TD here because they get shouted down, insulted, and treated as dirt.

      Even TD itself posts comments like "oh, grow up", and "you need an education", and "you don't have a clue". The majority shouts down the minority on this site, and most people who don't agree give it up fairly quickly.

      However, searching google for things like "mike masnick is wrong" gets you plenty of stuff to read. Just those people no longer bother to add comments here, because they know it just turns into a shouting match with a bunch of people too immature of actually discuss a subject and look at it deeply.

      Since the start of the year TD has been wrong on a number of occasions and drawn conclusions on things where no such conclusion is possible. It would help TD (not harm it) if they actually accepted that they made errors and worked to refine their arguments. Otherwise, their blog remains the home of what some people refer to as "freetards" or "koolaid drinkers", basically people slapping each other on the back for being the smartest cave men in the modern world.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Gabriel Tane (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 11:25am

        Re: Re: Why troll here?

        Highbrow and well-spoken, but still trolling. If you read through, you'll see that we "koolaid drinkers" are "shouting down" such people as Mr. Anonymous (not to be confused with the many Anonymous Cowards, some of whom actually present very well-stated arguments) who do nothing but post zingy one-liners such as "LOL". And no, I'm not making that up... that was his full response on at least one occasion... "LOL".

        "Since the start of the year TD has been wrong on a number of occasions and drawn conclusions on things where no such conclusion is possible. It would help TD (not harm it) if they actually accepted that they made errors and worked to refine their arguments. Otherwise, their blog remains the home of what some people refer to as "freetards" or "koolaid drinkers", basically people slapping each other on the back for being the smartest cave men in the modern world."
        At this point, I have to think that you're cherry-picking the parts you actually read. I have seen some of the regulars say "Oops... didn't think of that. You're right." They would then go on to restructure their arguments to take into account the new information. I've done that myself. I've had my foot wrapped in crow and had to take a big bite of it, and did so. Not so with Anonymous... I have never seen him deviate from the singular non-arguments he keeps bringing up. Feel free to show me where he's actually modified any of his statements after they were proven wrong (such as Arcara v Cloud Books).

        Finally, you say that TD has been wrong or drawn conclusions where no such conclusion is possible? Fine. Show me.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        vivaelamor (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 1:49pm

        Re: Re: Why troll here?

        'However, searching google for things like "mike masnick is wrong" gets you plenty of stuff to read.'

        Oddly, it only got me 1 result. I have to admit that I didn't bother switching off the content filter first though. I tried "masnick is wrong" too and had a great improvement of 9 results (most of which pointed to the same article). Without the quotes I get over 21,000 results, but then I get over twice that if I replace 'wrong' with 'right'. None of that really proves anything, but it does lead me to ask what are you trying to show with the suggestion?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    sam sin, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 2:37am

    the sad thing here is that if all the counterfeit goods were prevented from being sold or even produced, how many more people would buy the genuine article? how many more people would be able to afford to buy the genuine article? how many more people would actually want to buy the genuine article? i bet that number would be extremely low. as for using this to include IP? bad idea! the type of sneaky approach that we have come to expect from the entertainment industries, but one that they would condemn any other industry for doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 7:21am

    Maybe Wyden needs to talk to Homeland Security.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 7:42am

    The Trolls Are Out In Force Today

    "Our well-reasoned posts can't repel ad hominems of this magnitude!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 9:01am

      Re: The Trolls Are Out In Force Today

      They would if they were well reasoned. They are not.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 9:31am

        Re: Re: The Trolls Are Out In Force Today

        Methinks thou dost trolleth too much.

        Unless you're just out to provoke the further refinement of the arguments against you. If so, then bravo, well done.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TDR, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 1:42pm

    Anonymous, I'm still waiting for the evidence I requested. And as I said, I will not stop hounding you until you either give it to me or provide a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now. Everything you say is being reported, and it will not stop until you address me and give me what I've requested. Do it. Now. If you don't, you're only admitting to everyone here that you're a paid industry shill that doesn't care at all about basic human rights and constitutional rights. So make your choice. Now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This