Managing IP Magazine Recognizes That Those Who Are Critical Of Intellectual Property Are Important To The Conversation

from the nice-of-them dept

One of the things that we've noticed in the various debates over intellectual property is this rush by those who believe the answer is to increase protectionism and enforcement to cut those who are critics of the current IP regime out of the debate. It's why you see things like ASCAP claiming that Creative Commons is about undermining artists (what?!?). It's why you see Joe Biden hold an "IP Summit" and claim that "all the stakeholders" are present, when it only includes reps from the legacy gatekeepers.

So I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised when Managing IP magazine, which, obviously tends to focus on the side of the industry that likes intellectual property, put a bunch of critics of the system in its list of "top 50" voices in intellectual property (article is paywalled, unfortunately). On the list are such folks at Fred von Lohmann, Cory Doctorow and Nick Bertke (better known as the awesome mashup artist, Pogo). And, yes, somehow I got included on the list as well, which was a nice surprise. There are also some of the best bloggers in the intellectual property world on the list, including Jeremy from IPKat, the SpicyIP guys, Martin Schwimmer for his wonderful trademark blog, and Dennis Crouch for Patently-O, the definitive source on all things patent-related.

Of course, the list also includes folks like Chris "I'll never become a lobbyist" Dodd, for his new job running the lobbying organization MPAA, as well as ICE director John Morton, who uses being on the list to remind everyone that he's going to keep seizing websites because the law says he can.

Still, it really is nice to see that at least some in the "IP space" recognize that critical voices are also important to the debate.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: managing ip


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    FUDbuster (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:28pm

    ICE director John Morton, who uses being on the list to remind everyone that he's going to keep seizing websites because the law says he can.

    So you admit it then? Ha!

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:37pm

      Re:

      Was Mike's objection to the seizures based on the letter of the law, or a criticism of the constitutionality, morality, effectiveness and unintended consequences of doing so? I don't remember him saying it was illegal, maybe you can remind me?

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

      • icon
        FUDbuster (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:53pm

        Re: Re:

        He said that the PRO IP Act, which provides for the seizure of "all property" used to facilitate criminal copyright infringement, was somehow passed after promises/lies by those who passed it that it would only be used to seize physical copies of discs and the like. He's presented no evidence other than hearsay that this was actually the party line of those passing the Act. And a search of the congressional record on the matter doesn't support his position. Nor does he explain why they wrote the statute to say "all property" when purportedly it really means something else--something significantly less than what it actually says. It's a lot of tinfoil hat stuff as far as I can tell. Mike doesn't appear to question that the statute provides for such seizures, he just inexplicably argues that the statute "really" means something other than what it actually says.

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

        • icon
          FUDbuster (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, that's not exactly true. Mike also argues that a domain name can't possibly be property used to facilitate a crime. This argument has little merit.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:13am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So, you admit he wasn't arguing that it was illegal, just immoral and stupid, and the law shouldn't have been passed in its current state? Great, glad you agree.

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

          • icon
            Ninja (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually, seizures without due process are questionable even under the current law. What is happening in the US is a broad interpretation of laws designed to facilitate the fight against drug and counterfeit products dealing. Correct me if I'm wrong but Mike criticizes the misuse of the law. Much like the streaming law will probably be misused too.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Actually, seizures without due process are questionable even under the current law.


              Questionable?

              Questionable?

              No person shall be... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
                        ——old, obsolete, document


              Yeah. I guess that government “seizures without due process” are no no more than merely questionable.

               

              What happened? Why did it happen? We're going to have to break out the guillotine to put things right again —but first— we better damn well figure out what went wrong, and how to prevent it from happening next time.

              Or just all go home and admit that those 17th and 18th century conservatives were right. They had real conservatives back in those days: They said democracy would never work. And a republic could not endure.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:38pm

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

                After all of this time, do you seriously not understand that all the seizures you refer to are consistent with the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure? There are 200+ years of law that provide the roadmap for the constitutional protection you quote. There are thousands of court decisions on the application of due process.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:48pm

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

                  Two hundered years of law is not what Justice Kennnedy thinks:
                  While forfeiture remedies have been employed with increasing frequency in civil proceedings, forfeiture remedies and penalties are the subject of historic disfavor in our country. Although in personam forfeiture statutes were well grounded in the English common law, in personam criminal forfeiture penalties like those authorized under § 1963 were unknown in the federal system until the enactment of RICO in 1970.
                            ——Dissent in Alexander v United States (1993)


                  (Citations omitted, emphasis added).

                  Law office history?

                  Maybe the problem with our republic became deeply embedded with Mr Richard "I am not a Crook" Nixon, and his wars against the people.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          He said that the PRO IP Act, which provides for the seizure of "all property" used to facilitate criminal copyright infringement, was somehow passed after promises/lies by those who passed it that it would only be used to seize physical copies of discs and the like. He's presented no evidence other than hearsay that this was actually the party line of those passing the Act. And a search of the congressional record on the matter doesn't support his position. Nor does he explain why they wrote the statute to say "all property" when purportedly it really means something else--something significantly less than what it actually says. It's a lot of tinfoil hat stuff as far as I can tell. Mike doesn't appear to question that the statute provides for such seizures, he just inexplicably argues that the statute "really" means something other than what it actually says.

          You are absolutely right. I posited that the opponents of PRO IP must have been asleep or total rubes. And while I think that explains why you didn't see Masnick performing a Chicken Little break dance (accompanied by infringing music and images) in front of the Dirksen Building; for mainstream opponents, the more likely explanation is that they were perfectly aware of the implications and chose not to oppose them. The more controversial the bill the more closely the language scrutinized and the wilder the "what-if" scenarios become. PRO IP was no different.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:50pm

      Re:

      John Morton claiming that he's going to keep seizing websites because the law says so does not actually mean the law says so, it just means that John Morton is claiming that the law says so.

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

    • identicon
      Rich, 15 Jul 2011 @ 4:52am

      Re:

      Oh, FUDpacker, you at it again? Yes, Mike admits that's what Morton said. How does that change anything? Just because because Morton said it, doesn't make it constitutionally legal.

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

    • icon
      Niall (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:06am

      Re:

      I think you'll notice that Mike is actually saying:
      "John Morton, who uses being on the list to remind everyone that he's going to keep seizing websites because [he says] the law says he can",

      not

      "John Morton, who uses being on the list to remind everyone that he's going to keep seizing websites because [I say] the law says he can"

      Nice try, shame you found it too much of a strain to keep being vaguely reasonable.

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

    • icon
      ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 7:04am

      Re:

      I read it as 'John Morton claims the law says he can seize websites", not that Mike was saying it was legal.

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

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:35pm

    Well Mike, this was just a shameless self promotion.

    Kudos for making the list. Of course, now you're on the "list".

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

    • icon
      Marcel de Jong (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:33am

      Re:

      One sentence that mentions Mike being pleasantly surprised to find himself on the list, in an article filled with links to other completely relevant websites, constitutes as shameless self-promotion? It's good to know that your Reality Distortion Field is working.

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:45am

      Re:

      Shameless Jealousy from your part Mr Pixel?

      Shows how much of a weight this site has. And how Mike is doing a good job in having opposed opinions to copyright abuses ;)

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:42pm

      Re:

      @Pix

      You're wrong. Shameless self-promotion would be something like pandering to Russian State television. Oops...

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:18am

    Masnick doesn't seem to grasp what his inclusion on that list actually means.

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

    • icon
      Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:28am

      Re:

      What? That if you strike him down, he'll become more powerful than you can imagine?

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

    • icon
      martyburns (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:18am

      Re:

      Enlighten us then...

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:54am

      Re:

      Masnick doesn't seem to grasp what his inclusion on that list actually means.

      Right. It's not that he is a reasoned voice of opposition that brings value to the discussion; but more that he's like an annoying anal fungus that can't be gotten rid of.

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

      • icon
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:58am

        Re: Re:

        "but more that he's like an annoying anal fungus that can't be gotten rid of."
        Yeah, but most anal fungi are something one gets unintentionally... whereas you actively seek exposure to and engage in interation with this 'anal fungus'.

        Telling.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:08am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, but most anal fungi are something one gets unintentionally... whereas you actively seek exposure to and engage in interation with this 'anal fungus'.

          Telling.


          True. But only insofar as to apply the salve of reason... to which he seems highly resistant to thus far.

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

          • icon
            Gabriel Tane (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Wait... you actively seek out infection by what you consider fungus just so you can rub an ointment on your anus? And I thought my hobbies were weird.

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

          • icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 7:10am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Really? "the salve of reason"?

            You are an adorably pompous ass...

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 12:37pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Really? "the salve of reason"?

              You are an adorably pompous ass...


              Why thank you. But you're another particularly virulent strain. No matter, our scientists are working on ever more powerful balms to apply to you and your ilk.

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

              • icon
                Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:27pm

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

                our scientists are working on ever more powerful balms

                Well, knowing how you're scientists operate, I'm sure any discoveries they make will be locked up in restrictive patents for years to come - so I'm not too worried.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:55pm

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

                  "our scientists are working on ever more powerful balms"

                  Well, knowing how you're scientists operate, I'm sure any discoveries they make will be locked up in restrictive patents for years to come - so I'm not too worried.

                  At last, our scientists have successfully isolated this virulent strain of fungus in a petri dish. Finally, there will be a treatment for the annoying rectal itch caused by candidiasis masnickus. Of course, we will charge a fair price to recoup our R&D costs and operating overhead. You can probably order it on the cheap from a rogue website in Russia but don't be surprised if you get Brylcreem instead.

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

                  • icon
                    Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:04pm

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

                    Well it's obvious why you're pro-IP. All your plans involve selling things that nobody wants to buy.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 7:38pm

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

                      Well it's obvious why you're pro-IP. All your plans involve selling things that nobody wants to buy.

                      Yet they persist in taking it illegally. Go figure

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

                      • icon
                        Marcus Carab (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 7:55pm

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

                        Ah, so all it took was trapping you in a self-serving metaphor to get you to admit that piracy represents valid market forces. You're not very good at this!

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

      • icon
        Niall (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:14am

        Re: Re:

        So if his attempt at being a reasoned voice of objection is 'being an annoying anal fungus',then how much lower down the evolutionary chain does that leave your random insults and non-reasoned non-arguments?

        Besides, in a twisted way you just complimented Mike. You've said his arguments can't be gotten rid of. Congratulations for agreeing with his position!

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So if his attempt at being a reasoned voice of objection is 'being an annoying anal fungus',then how much lower down the evolutionary chain does that leave your random insults and non-reasoned non-arguments?

          The insults are hardly random. They're specific and targeted. As for the non-reasoned, non-arguments... [citation needed].

          Besides, in a twisted way you just complimented Mike. You've said his arguments can't be gotten rid of. Congratulations for agreeing with his position!

          Oh! Is this an example of what you mean is a non-reasoned, non-argument? Obviously you are a much less virulent strain. I believe that this single application of the ointment of reason will cure you entirely.

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:43am

        Re: Re:

        "It's not that he is a reasoned voice of opposition that brings value to the discussion"

        I'm yet to see an AC come close to doing anything this, especially one of the regular ACs. What's your excuse?

        Come on, at least explain "what his inclusion on that list actually means" for those of us who don't "get it"... I'm looking for this "reason" you refer do in your reply to Gabriel, but I don't see it in your posts.

        "more that he's like an annoying anal fungus that can't be gotten rid of"

        Ah, personal attacks and no actual attempt to reason why Mike's position is so egregious. Yep, that sounds like the usual AC tactic and it has no place near a business discussion.

        There's a simple way to get rid of Mike. Look up. See that address bar at the top of the browser? Type another address in there that doesn't contain "techdirt.com", and you're unlikely to be bothered by him again. You could even go to Wordpress, Blogger or another site of your choice and immediately start writing posts of your own. Maybe your astounding logic and incredible writing techniques can bury Techdirt's popularity.

        That you choose not to, and instead make baseless attacks against people and reduce yourself to childish name calling says a lot more about you than him. Hell I can say you lot are probably worse than fungus - most fungus at least has a name to identify itself with.

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

    • icon
      Hephaestus (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 7:22am

      Re:

      "Masnick doesn't seem to grasp what his inclusion on that list actually means."

      Let me guess, future inclusion on the TSA's grope list? Being blacklisted from whitehouse dinner parties. Being put on the future rogue site list right after the EFF and CC.

      So tell us what does it mean?

      I have said for a year now, that big content was going to over reach and face a backlash. One very huge lesson life lesson learned on my part is, if everyone is congratulating themselves on a job well done and jumping on the bandwagon, it's time to get off the bandwagon. Because it's about to come to a crashing halt.

      The support of the current whitehouse administration has given you IP max types blinders and tunnel vision. So much so that you do not see judges taking notice, one half of all house holds in france being accused of infringement and the resentment that is creating, and the tech world waking upto the threat you represent.

      You are totally boned and know its's over when beltway staffers comment on the number of anti-ip e-mails and look fearful when PROTECT-IP is mentioned.

      So enjoy your happiness while it lasts.

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

      • icon
        FUDbuster (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 7:52am

        Re: Re:

        Let me guess, future inclusion on the TSA's grope list? Being blacklisted from whitehouse dinner parties. Being put on the future rogue site list right after the EFF and CC.

        LMAO!

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

      • icon
        Jay (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 8:16am

        Re: Re:

        "You are totally boned and know its's over when beltway staffers comment on the number of anti-ip e-mails and look fearful when PROTECT-IP is mentioned. "

        Source?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 11:59am

        Re: Re:

        I have said for a year now, that big content was going to over reach and face a backlash. One very huge lesson life lesson learned on my part is, if everyone is congratulating themselves on a job well done and jumping on the bandwagon, it's time to get off the bandwagon. Because it's about to come to a crashing halt.

        Keep wishing.

        The support of the current whitehouse administration has given you IP max types blinders and tunnel vision.

        Better hope the Republicans don't take over in 2012. You'll be talking nostalgically about the good ol days when you only had to contend with Protect IP, Felony Streaming and six strikes. There are a lot of Republicans who believe your free speech rights don't extend to encryption and would like to see some controls on use.

        So much so that you do not see judges taking notice, one half of all house holds in france being accused of infringement and the resentment that is creating, and the tech world waking upto the threat you represent.

        One half of all households in France? You're in the wrong fairy tale Tinkerbell.

        You are totally boned and know its's over when beltway staffers comment on the number of anti-ip e-mails and look fearful when PROTECT-IP is mentioned.

        Perhaps you're unaware of the numbers of sponsors of Protect IP and that both Felony Streaming and Protect IP were reported out of committee unanimously. The House version will combine those two bills and will have even more goodies that you won't like. The only "beltway" staffers (assume you mean congressional) that look fearful when Protect IP is mention are the ones who work for Zoe Lofgren and Ron Wyden.

        So enjoy your happiness while it lasts.

        Thank you, I shall

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

        • icon
          Hephaestus (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "One half of all households in France? You're in the wrong fairy tale Tinkerbell."

          From the CIA Factbook Frances population is 65 million, there are 2.4? people per house hold avg, there were 18 million Infringements with 470 thousand households notified. I know full well that the 18 million are not unique. But it's close enough.

          About half of congressional staffers are young and tech savy. They know the backlast 6 strikes, the streaming bill, and PROTECT IP are going to cause. But because of campaign contributions and the USTR's lobbying efforts there is nothing that can be done to stop it. There is serious fear and paranoia that bachmann will end up VP, or worse that which ever republican ends up in the whitehouse will throw in with the tea party. Now combine this with a voter backlash against people that vote for PROTECT IP, and the felony streaming bill, and the end result is serious fear.

          The senators and congress persons are cocooned and insulated against the public they are there to represent. From what I hear the pollsters are not asking the right questions, they have been doing this for 100 years and "know" the questions that should be asked. But much has changed in the past 4 years. Facebook, Twitter, linkedin, have grown huge, and can overthrow governments and sway elections, if the right person takes an interest.

          So, yes, there is fear that is palpable, But being insulated from the public, the congress critter's don't see it. Truth be told PROTECT IP will probably get passed, I know it's not the straw, or the tipping point, that changes things in DC, but it is one thing that tips the scales towards passive revolt (voting) and change.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            About half of congressional staffers are young and tech savy. They know the backlast 6 strikes, the streaming bill, and PROTECT IP are going to cause. But because of campaign contributions and the USTR's lobbying efforts there is nothing that can be done to stop it. There is serious fear and paranoia that bachmann will end up VP, or worse that which ever republican ends up in the whitehouse will throw in with the tea party. Now combine this with a voter backlash against people that vote for PROTECT IP, and the felony streaming bill, and the end result is serious fear.

            Serious fear of what?

            Some of the strongest proponents of Protect IP are Republicans. It's a very bipartisan bill. You get Bachman and another Republican in there along with a Republican and very possibly a Republican Senate and you have a trifecta of doom for your side of the issue. Those bills and graduated response measures will be well established. The law-enforcement crazed Republicans will do all they can support the agenda of their supporters at the USCoC and big business who really like these bills. Republicans have little use for Google and apologists like EFF, PK and CDT. They are likely to expand national security laws to limit encryption, furthering pressing freeloaders. If Protect IP spawns an anti-incumbent backlash the likely beneficiaries are people who are even more hostile to your right to free entertainment. All of this small government, free market Republican rhetoric is bullshit. They use it when it suits them (like net neutrality) and when they perceive a problem they're the first ones pushing a law. Same with spending. The Bush Adminsitration spent money like a drunken sailor and now the Republicans have the temerity to criticize Obama for pumping cash into the economy to stave off a collapse engineered by years of bad policy and neglect by the Republicans. I guess those staffer's fears related to their jobs. Many people are single-issue voters; but I doubt that there are a sufficient number of people whose sole issue is the ability to freeload, that could swing an election.

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

            • icon
              Hephaestus (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Many people are single-issue voters; but I doubt that there are a sufficient number of people whose sole issue is the ability to freeload, that could swing an election."

              You missed my entire point, and you got it at the same time, that be weird. Using hand signs, large letters, and short easy to understand sentences, here goes.

              In most industrialized nations roughly 50% of the population infringes music and video. Since I know the [citation needed] is coming. The top of the list are South Korea, and Spain. Spain is such an infringement haven the Record labels, TV, and movie studios have threatened to pull out of the nation. Spain has an infringment rate of over 70% of households. South Korea is higher. In both nations nothing is being done, and can not be. (you can search techdirt for all of this)

              In the US, the infringment rate is 48% percent of house holds, or people, I can't remember which. The number is from a 2008 or 2009 study. In either case its a huge number of internet connections. You doubting that there are enough people to sway the vote is seriously wrong.


              "are likely to expand national security laws to limit encryption, furthering pressing freeloaders."

              So google+, my bank, my VPN to work, my online games of chess, and all the other encrypted things are going to require a license or be restricted, yeah right, that's total FUD. There is a push to encrypt every connection online.

              It's actually alot of fun to chat with you. Coming from a psyche background, I must say you are an interesting find.

              PS - read my comment below, you might get a kick out of what is in the pipeline, I didn't do it justice though

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

        • icon
          Hephaestus (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I forgot to mention there is an app being developed for facebook that will notify you of everything you politicians have voted on. It's due out beginning Q2 2012. It will include short blurb's about the laws they voted on, how they voted, what the law means, the constitutionality of the law, and how much it will cost total and you personally.

          The neat thing is it notifies you when it is a bill. It tells you what the bill means. It allows you to e-mail your politician on that bill. It keeps track of your e-mails. It keeps track of what you wanted you politican to do. And it notifies you on how he voted. Somewhere in it you can look up campaign promises also.

          All in all it's an at a glance, do I want to vote for this fucker ever again, game changer.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 3:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Hey, I'm all for it. I just don't think that the right to freeload competes with abortion, guns, taxes, foreign policy, healthcare, social security, welfare, jobs, financial reform, energy, gay marriage, housing and many, many more issues. A voter with a conservative bent who likes to freeload will more likely vote for the guy who opposes raising taxes, limits on guns and gay marriage but also supports Protect IP than the guy who wants to raise taxes expand the social safety net and believes that gay marriage is OK but opposes Protect IP. Sorry, I just don't see it.

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

            • icon
              Hephaestus (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What I see is 300 years of IP prohibition. Where somehing that was legal until 1709 and the statute of Anne, became illegal. Where the monopoly rents, and high prices, of pharma have directly caused the death of 100 million people world wide, according to the UN and WHO. We now live in a world where children can't sing happy birthday in public, and playing music to horses will get you fined. And worst of all we are living in a world where paris hilton can probably get away with charging you for saying "That's Hot".

              I don't see anyway this expansion of IP can be pushed any further without something breaking.

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

        • icon
          techflaws.org (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 3:06am

          Re: Re: Re:

          There are a lot of Republicans who believe your free speech rights don't extend to encryption and would like to see some controls on use.

          Yeah, right. It is well known that of all the right-winged parties the US Reps are the most stupid. But that won't stop them from realizing that people will encrypt anyway.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 11:09am

      Re:

      Masnick doesn't seem to grasp what his inclusion on that list actually means.


      AC doesn't seem to grasp what his presence on this blog actually means.

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

  • identicon
    The IPKat, 15 Jul 2011 @ 3:27am

    Stakeholders

    I really appreciate your comment about rushing to cut people out of the debate, which is absolutely right. "Stakeholder" has become an exclusionary term -- but we are all stakeholders in IP now, whether as creators, owners, authorised or unauthorised users, competitors, distributors or consumers.

    It was tough work trying to organise a non-exclusionary copyright debate this week, but with the help of a lot of people it more or less worked. The high point for me wasn't the debate itself but the sight of high priests of the copyright industry engaged in human discussion with major critics of the system over a refreshingly free beer and realising they lived in the same world and shared more values than they first thought they did.

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

  • identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 15 Jul 2011 @ 3:46am

    Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

    First step to being co-opted is to be given a seat at the table.

    Except I think Mike is actually already co-opted; unless you start with the premise that he's not a corporatist shill, it's difficult to find in his lame arguments, his frequent touting of Google, his ivory tower economics...

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 3:58am

      Re: First step to being co-opted is to be given a seat at the table. Except I think Mike is actually already co-opted ...

      So which is it?

      It’s not a very believable story when your second paragraph contradicts your first.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 4:52am

      Re: Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

      "...his frequent touting of Google"

      Actually:

      http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/?company=google

      At least 3 stories in the first page there blast at Google for something they did "wrong".

      As for everything else, [citation needed].



      Off-topic:

      Hey Mike (or whoever is responsible), we need a better way to search by company. Searching for Google just returns a load of semi-unrelated trash.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 4:58am

        Re: Re: Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

        Still off-topic:

        And in case you are wondering how I got the list, I went back to find a Google story, just to find a "Google" link in the "Companies" section to the left. Yeah, not optimal...

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

  • icon
    David Muir (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:39am

    Dissenting Voices

    I was thinking about the two sides of the debate as I read this Techcrunch article this morning: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/15/case-study-how-piracy-destroys-app-profits/

    My thoughts wandered from CwF/RtB to Minecraft's success, and then back to 99 cents as being a pretty nominal cost for an app -- and the whole concept of "demonstrable loss due to piracy".

    Never though, did I think that it is Apple's fault for not locking up the apps better. I'd love to hear the opinions about this article from the people on this "list". :-)

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

  • icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:55am

    Julie Burns

    Bet she hates to see so many freetards on that list!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 3:16pm

    Stakeholders versus Beneficiaries

    I basically agree with what's being said here, but the word "stakeholders" caught my eye, because I've seen Mr. Masnick rail against IP-maximalists being stakeholders.
    I think that as much as I'd like to see such maximalists not at the table at all, I think it's important to realize that while consumers are just as much stakeholders as are IP-maximalists, that doesn't mean IP-maximalists aren't stakeholders at all, just because they're also beneficiaries. That would be like saying that because entitlement programs are draining government funds too much, seniors can't be called to the negotiating table as stakeholders just because they're the beneficiaries.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 10:00pm

    Ah, so all it took was trapping you in a self-serving metaphor to get you to admit that piracy represents valid market forces. You're not very good at this!

    Not so fast candidiasis carabi, I believe that piracy represents two things. First, a willingness for people to engage in low-risk, self-serving theft for personal enrichment. But second, it also is an expression of evolving market demand wherein people want what they want, when they want it. I'll grant you that the market has done a poor job in responding, but add that large companies are not nimble and take time to reinvent something as fundamental (and large) as distribution models- which tend to be complex involving many outside forces, contractual relationships and other considerations. Distribution is changing and I think you are destined to se a much more "a la carte" model continue to evolve. However, that lapse in no way excuses what I consider to be theft. What right does a rogue site operator have to profit from someone else's movie? He's taken no risk, made no (or very little) investment and yet reaps income that should come to the rights holders. We can argue the semantics of theft or what proportion of pirated copies translate to actual sales all day long and to no conclusion. I have a fundamental problem with the concept that someone is getting something of value for nothing (or next to nothing). And that rogue site operators personally profit without any direct investment or risk associated with making a motion picture. You can argue the minutiae, but the underlying reality is really indefensable in my book.

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

    • icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 8:14am

      Re:

      Really this seems like the crux of your hang-up:

      I have a fundamental problem with the concept that someone is getting something of value for nothing (or next to nothing).

      All that says to me is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between price and value.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2011 @ 8:49am

        Re: Re:

        But what of the rogue site operator who makes money selling another's product? Is that part of the price/value equation?

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

        • icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 9:14am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Rogue site" is a bullshit made-up term. Are we talking about sites that index streaming TV shows? Because seriously, who gives a shit? None of them seem to make much beyond operating expenses. And watching TV that way can be a huge pain in the ass, what with bad links and missing episodes and poorly synched audio tracks - the only advantage is flexibility and selection. If networks would stop playing their silly control games and making ridiculous demands, something like Netflix could easily become far more compelling than streaming indexes, and make everyone a tonne of money.

          The streaming sites aren't cheating at the price/value equation. They are adding value that the networks/studios refuse to, and giving it away for free. In another conversation on this thread you said "Hey, I'm all for it. I just don't think that the right to freeload competes with abortion, guns, taxes, foreign policy, healthcare, social security, welfare, jobs, financial reform, energy, gay marriage, housing and many, many more issues."

          I know you were talking in a different context, but how you feel about the "right to freeload" is how I feel about the "problem" of "rogue websites" - as in, I really don't give a shit, because it doesn't seem to harm anyone and fighting it is clearly impossible anyway. (And no, I am not talking about counterfeit pharmaceuticals and actual problems like that, which should have never been put under the same header as streaming sites and torrent trackers in the first place)

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

        • icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 9:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually, on re-reading your longer comment above, I see your real point: it just irks you that people are doing this, even if what they are doing doesn't hurt anyone.

          That's fine, I guess. But personally I see no point in letting that get in the way of pragmatic decision making and smart business. And I definitely don't understand how that bothers you, but the erosion of free speech rights doesn't.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2011 @ 9:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Marcus, I was pretty much with you until your attempt to distort free speech with free loading. The ability to criticize government, advocate a point of view, espouse a religion is very different than the ability to watch someone else's movie without paying for it.

            The rogue site operators are largely in it for the money. If you think these guys give a shit about free speech beyond their own wallets, you're delusional. Hulu Plus, Netflix, Amazon and others will (I believe) dominate distribution in the future. No one at the studios believes that historical models of distribution have much further relevance, but you have no idea the complexity involved in changing those existing models. I'll also grant you that the studios did recognize the rise of new distribution models that threatened their own years ago. But frankly, I don't think many "got it" for awhile. They get it now and as I said, distribution is evolving. I also hasten to add, that slowly evolving distribution models do not excuse illegal behavior. It's entertainment. Not food, not water, not medication. Millions can and do go without it just fine. The sense of entitlement is way out of whack.

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

            • icon
              Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 10:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              slowly evolving distribution models do not excuse illegal behavior

              Do they excuse sweeping changes to IP law that will only allow them to evolve slower? Like you said, it's entertainment, not food or water or medication - why should the government step in to protect it with legislation that could have massive unintended repercussions? The industry's sense of entitlement is way out of whack.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 10:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I was pretty much with you until your attempt to distort free speech with free loading."

              Inigo Montoya might want a word about your use of "distort" there, I think

              But, it's worth pointing out that the industry's recent attempts to change the law in order to stop the latter has very real and dangerous consequences for the former.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 9:05am

      Re:

      "First, a willingness for people to engage in low-risk, self-serving theft for personal enrichment."

      It's not theft, for reasons explained ad nauseum, but fair enough.

      "But second, it also is an expression of evolving market demand wherein people want what they want, when they want it."

      Indeed. There's no inherent problem with this, however, and the legitimate market providers are in a position to meet this demand. They simply choose not to, for reasons ranging from fear of cannibalising existing markets to not understanding the demand because they blame "piracy" for all their woes rather than listening to their customers.

      "I'll grant you that the market has done a poor job in responding, but add that large companies are not nimble and take time to reinvent something as fundamental (and large) as distribution models"

      They've had 15 years since the internet gained widespread popularity, and over a decade since Napster. Over a decade since iTunes proved that people are more than willing to pay for legal product if and when available, and years of examples of legal startups doing very from distributing their content. That's plenty of time for even the largest industries to respond, yet half their efforts have been devoted to crippling licences applied to new companies while suing their own customers. Forgive me if I lack sympathy.

      "What right does a rogue site operator have to profit from someone else's movie?"

      None. But, if he's simply supplying the demand that the content owners fail or refuse to supply they have nobody to blame but themselves.

      "I have a fundamental problem with the concept that someone is getting something of value for nothing (or next to nothing). "

      Value != price. I value Google, Facebook, email, libraries, radio and TV rather a lot, but I never pay anything for them, at least not directly. I pay literally nothing for the books and DVDs I borrow from friends, but that doesn't make them less valuable, nor does it mean that the producers of those items are "losing money".

      "And that rogue site operators personally profit without any direct investment or risk associated with making a motion picture."

      Nor should they be expected to, as Apple, Netflix, YouTube, Pandora et al are not expected to provide their own content. These "rogue operators" are simply service providers, supplying the service that the content owners either can't or won't for whatever reason.

      If they were, they'd have my full sympathy and support for fighting piracy, as I have little problem with them shutting down pirate DVD shops and counterfeiting operations. But, they're trying to change the law in a number of extremely bad ways, with atrocious consequences for all, because they are trying to cling to business models that simply won't work today.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2011 @ 9:57am

        Re: Re:

        "And that rogue site operators personally profit without any direct investment or risk associated with making a motion picture."

        Nor should they be expected to, as Apple, Netflix, YouTube, Pandora et al are not expected to provide their own content. These "rogue operators" are simply service providers, supplying the service that the content owners either can't or won't for whatever reason.

        I'm ok with a lot of what you said, though you really don't understand some of the complexities. The italicized statement above is just stupid, though. Legitimate sites compensate rights holders. Rogue sites do not. Legitimate sites are undermined by rogue sites as well. How can a legitimate provider who has to pay for content (like Netflix) complete with a clone that doesn't pay for content? So the new and evolving distribution models that you are clamouring for are themselves undermined by rogue sites. Your kneejerk defense of piracy undermines the creation and expansion of the very distribution models that you want to see.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 16 Jul 2011 @ 10:45am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I'm ok with a lot of what you said, though you really don't understand some of the complexities."

          Then educate me. Don't call me stupid, just say "you're wrong" or misrepresent my position. Tell me what I'm missing.

          For the record, I understand that there a lot of issues with licencing, contracts and other legal aspects that make it difficult to make changes quickly. That's part of why it's so frustrating to see the King Canute act and attacks on the public - work to make the changes required to compete should have been visible a decade ago, they've simply wasted their time with lawsuits and the like instead.

          "Legitimate sites compensate rights holders. Rogue sites do not."

          I didn't say otherwise. Maybe you misunderstood my "stupidity"?

          My point is that you criticised "rogue site operators" because they don't directly invest in or make motion pictures. I simply pointed out that neither do Netflix and the like. It's a strawman argument at best. Service providers do not have to be involved in creating the content they carry to be legitimate businesses.

          "How can a legitimate provider who has to pay for content (like Netflix) complete with a clone that doesn't pay for content?"

          I find it amusing that you ask this question, since Netflix is currently doing a very good job competing with such clones, as are Apple, Pandora, Spotify, and so on.

          But, for arguments' sake - easily, if the studios would let them. Start by licencing content instead of trying to withhold it in the hope of further profit. Windowing creates demand for pirate content. Licence content globally so that the global demand for piracy is vastly reduced - your market is not just North America.

          Then, Netflix can concentrate on the features that make it more attractive than a pirate site - not only the fact that people like paying for legit content if the price is right but ease of use, accurate recommendations, reliability and so on. On top of that, Netflix's legitimate competition would be able to offer similar services and the pirate sites would be drowned out. Why risk funding criminals and getting bad copies of movies when the HD original is on Netflix?

          Idealistic, perhaps, but "I can't compete with piracy" is not only lazy, it's an outright lie.

          "Your kneejerk defense of piracy"

          Please borrow some reading comprehension from somebody. I did no such thing. Piracy is wrong and should not happen. But, you won't stop it by merely attacking the current supply while the demand remains. And it will remain, so long as the industry continues to refuse to supply or hinder legitimate companies from offing the same service.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2011 @ 7:05am

    "There are a lot of Republicans who believe your free speech rights don't extend to encryption and would like to see some controls on use."

    i>Yeah, right. It is well known that of all the right-winged parties the US Reps are the most stupid. But that won't stop them from realizing that people will encrypt anyway.

    You ought not be so cavalier. I don't pretend to know how encryption works in great detail, but I do know that there is a concern about non-commercial encryption being used as a terrorist or criminal communication tool (which it almost certainly is). Post-Patriot Act, it's hardly unimaginable that some law regulating private encryption doesn't surface. And if private encryption is regulated under some sort of Republican sponsored crime/national security law, it's equally hard to imagine that there wouldn't be remedies for people who encrypt anyway.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2011 @ 8:47am

    Perhaps. But I'd argue that the ease of breaking the law has an artificial affect on value. Who would pay the going price for anything if they could illegally obtain it as easily as a movie?

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

    • icon
      Jay (profile), 17 Jul 2011 @ 5:52am

      Re:

      They would pay for access. This is what Netflix is all about.

      BUT, have you ever considered the licensing issues based on copyright law are going to hurt any streaming business, simply because of how "content holders" over value their stock?

      The entire point of this blog is to point out the artificial scarcities involved by copyright law. It's something that Protect IP, 10 Strikes law, and the Child Porn Acts can't add value to.

      What value is made in going for "rogue websites" that could be given a license for $25 to operate in a legal capacity? How are marketers engaging or providing services if they have to account criminally for what is usually a legal act?

      Take a look at 2(B)(ii) of the 10 strikes legislation. Think about this:

      UFC has a license solely with PPV for US $50. A person in Brazil might not like that price and find an alternative, paying for DVDs, T-shirts, or other secondary goods. While they might have seen the PPV for free, there's other places that a person might spend money.

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisment

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

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

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.