(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
internet, protect ip, security

Companies:
mpaa



Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It... Or The MPAA?

from the easy-question dept

We've already covered the white paper written by a bunch of the biggest names in internet infrastructure, explaining why PROTECT IP breaks key underlying elements of the internet. At the same time, we've seen the entertainment industry try to brush off these concerns. However, the guys who wrote the white paper have been speaking up lately trying to get our elected officials to recognize the consequences of passing PROTECT IP as is. But the really funny part is watching the technically clueless MPAA try to brush off these concerns. It's almost laughable. Basically, the MPAA stamps its collective foot, and insists that it couldn't possibly break the internet, and then suggests that "America's technology community" can fix any problems:
DNSSEC was designed to provide consumers with a secure, trusted connection to services like online banking, commercial transactions, and electronic medical records - not to foreign websites operated by criminals for the purpose of offering counterfeit and infringing works. These evolving protocols should be flexible enough to allow for government, acting pursuant to a court order, to protect intellectual property online.... We rely on the Internet to do too much and be too much to let it decay into a lawless Wild West. We are confident that America's technology community, which leads the world in innovation and creativity, will be capable of developing a technical solution that helps address the serious challenge of rogue sites.
Nowhere do they actually respond to the issues raised by Paul Vixie, Dan Kaminsky and others about how PROTECT IP won't just break the internet, but also make it more vulnerable to malicious hackers. Instead, the MPAA seems to be relying on the "but we don't think that'll happen!" argument. And the sad thing is that our elected officials are likely to buy that explanation from the MPAA before listening to those folks who actually helped build the very internet architecture they're about to break.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    The eejit (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:34am

    I wonder what would happen if, the day after PIPA became law, someone spoofed the RIAA/MPAA's IP while downloading a ton of movies, and reporting them as 'rogue sites'?

    Would that be a huge dose of schadenfreude pie you're asking for? Why, Yes, yes it is.

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

    • icon
      duffmeister (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:23am

      Re:

      It doesn't take any actual downloads, just accusations and as they are a business and thus an individual (thanks for that gem SCOTUS) they can be disconnected from the internet.

      I also wonder if SOUNDEX collecting fees for music they don't represent falls afoul of the "Rogue Sites" definition they are attempting to put into law? That seems to be diverting monies from the rightful owners of the music......

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

    • icon
      Any Mouse (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 1:06pm

      Re:

      People keep suggesting this, and yet I wonder. Do people truly believe that this would/could happen? I doubt they get their internet through the consumer branches of any of these ISPs that signed the agreement. More than likely they're connected through dumb pipe commercial providers who won't bother with such agreements.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:14pm

      Take it a step further

      Spoof the MPAA IP for music downloads, and spoof the RIAA IP for movie downloads. Let them go at each other for mutually assured destruction.

      Problem solved!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 6:36am

      Re:

      MAFIAA has declared war and we should all be boycotting their greedy business.PROTECT-IP my ass you frakken bastards.
      i do wish to start seeing bad shit happen to those who think they can take away freedom in the usa.

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

  • icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:41am

    Actually I think you might be missing the hidden message to Vixie, Kaminsky et al in their statement:

    We are confident that America's technology community, which leads the world in innovation and creativity, will be capable of developing a technical solution that helps address the serious challenge of rogue sites.

    I read that as: "Yeah, we'll break it - and you'll fucking fix it, nerds."

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

    • icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:48am

      Re:

      Pretty much.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:58am

      Re:

      Good point. I didn't think he was really going that far, but I shouldn't underestimate the MPAA.

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

    • icon
      Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:20am

      Re:

      I can't wait till a DNS server that serves a large chunk of a TLD is taken down. Imagine the backlash if they take out BOA, or Wells Fargo, or Citi for 48 hours. This is going to be fun to watch.

      Dave - Gets popcorn and waits for the ensuing chaos.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:29am

        Re: Re:

        Ooh! Ooh! Can I report the GOP, too?

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

        • icon
          Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:20am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Recompile and distribute Limewire pro and call it GOP, then you won't be able to find it in googles look ahead either. :)

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

          • icon
            mike allen (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 1:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            er isn't that frostwire?

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

            • icon
              Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 6:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes, it is an "LOL limewire", and "Frostwire". The thought is name every file sharing app after something the MPAA and RIAA can not ban on google look ahead, GOP, Obama, democrat, republican, Bachmann, etc. Rename torrent file extensions the same way.

              It would put an end to googles censoring of file extensions. I mean is big content actually going to try and ban look ahead on democrat, republican, obama, bachmann, GOP, etc?

              Every problem has a solution. This one is funny, ironic, and will cause all sorts of fall out.

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

    • icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:33am

      Re:

      I actually have an issue with that part of statement. Here's why:

      The "technology community" has already given you a solution. Adapt your business model to the new reality of today instead of trying to turn the clock back to 20 years ago.

      Don't ask me for a "technical solution" to a problem that is not a technical problem. If you bring me a computer with a burnt out PSU or a cracked motherboard, don't ask me for a software fix - it's a hardware problem. Likewise, don't ask me for a technical solution to an economic (business model) problem.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:40am

        Re: Re:

        We see that a lot around here. I work for an IT firm and most managers want us to develop solutions for them that amount to 'I don't want to train my people. Make my management problem your IT problem'.

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

        • icon
          Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You don't have to tell me. I just got off a conference call where my group got bitched at for not having a solution to people forgetting their passwords - despite the fact we have about six ways for a user to reset their password once they've forgotten it.

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

      • icon
        Crosbie Fitch (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:12pm

        Re: Re:

        I've got a technical solution to the problem of exchanging intellectual work given an ineffective reproduction monopoly in copies. See http://contingencymarket.com

        Trouble is, until everyone snaps out of the collective delusion that copyright can yet be made to work again, the credibility of anyone arguing that it's possible to exchange work directly (without having to print out copies and sell them at monopoly protected prices) is still at a pretty low level these days.

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

        • icon
          Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Just because you have a website doesn't make it a technical solution. When I see the words "technical solution" coming from the mouth of an MPAA spokesman, my brain interprets that to "make us something so we don't have to do anything different that still makes us oodles of money."

          The idea is interesting, and I definitely would consider it one of the many economic solutions that exist.

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

          • icon
            Crosbie Fitch (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 1:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well, sure. When I say technical solution I mean something that enables artists to be directly and financially incentivised by those who want them to produce more work - without necessitating giving grandmothers 3 year jail terms if they share their music collection.

            That doesn't mean it continues to provide publishing corporations with 99% of the audience-to-artist revenue. For that you'd need an Internet tax, e.g. $100 per subscriber per month, of which $1 ends up in artists' pockets, and $99 in the cartel's. And I suspect an Internet tax is what they're aiming for - they just need to keep on winding up the pressure to ensure the 'compensation package' they will reluctantly accept is sufficiently close to the profits they require.

            I suspect the cartel is so fixated on preserving copyright (or its revenues and/or channel control) that they don't realise they can actually sell their back-catalogue copyleft with negligible overhead and still rake in the revenue for years to come (until the catalogue is exhausted).

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 1:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It won't really be called a 'tax' but just wait for it ....

              Secure DNS connection lookup fee of only $.25 per site per connection, want to connect to AT&T and make sure it's the real AT&T, that will be $.25, dropped connection, need to find them again, that will be another $.25....

              It may seem small, but when your 'lookup' fees for the month start exceeding your connection fees, perhaps people will wake up and wonder what the frak happend.....

              Think people would never go for this? It's the 'telehpone book' model..... Here is a list of the secure DNS names and appropriate IP addresses, in unsearchable PDF Format, all 14,527 pages, just find the one you want and use it. Want some 'directory assistance' with us connecting you to the person you are looking for, sure for a low connection fee of $.25 (to be fair, most phone companies charge .50, so internet users are getting a real break here)

              I don't always believe this crap as I'm writing it, but I often look back and think..... someone might actually think I'm serious and try to make this happen (sarcasm warning).

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

        • icon
          mike allen (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 1:12pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          it has not worked since ohh radio was invented

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:14pm

      Re: Fix It Nerds

      There is not actually a fix. But there is a workaround. If the US government will not allow DNS servers which conform to standards, then DNS servers which *DO* conform to standards will be set up outside US jurisdiction. People who want standards-compliant DNS will then point their DNS resolvers at the new servers.

      The internet will then be broken, because the U in URL will no longer be universal. It will just stay broken.

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

  • icon
    Jay (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:32am

    How much law do we need?

    Patriot Act - Makes it so that businesses keep records on customers in the name of national security.

    DMCA - Takedown notices on allegations of copyright infringement

    NET Act - Increased penalties of copyright infringement

    Protect IP - Does everything but protect intellectual property law. See also mooo.com protocol. DNS filtering through targeted enforcement of rogue websites without any regard to judicial overview.

    10 Strikes act - Antistreaming bill to support DVD purchases at walmart.

    -----------------------------------------

    When you look at all of the things to try to stop piracy, how does any of it make sense?

    Why not just declare wars on libraries too?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:07pm

      Re: How much law do we need?

      "Why not just declare wars on libraries too?"

      Soon™

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

    • identicon
      MrWilson, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:42pm

      Re: How much law do we need?

      This may be the one area where they are actually looking ahead, though I think it's completely accidental rather than intentional.

      Anything they can do to curb digital freedoms is declaring wars on libraries. A lot of libraries are moving more and more online with ebooks and digital archives. Especially with the costs of maintaining a building with a bunch of deteriorating analog information containers and paying older librarians who don't understand digital archiving, it just makes sense to a lot of municipalities that are facing budget shortfalls.

      In my experience, the younger generation of librarians (or library and information science graduates still looking for a job because the older, obsolete librarians aren't retiring yet) are eager to move more and more towards this model and they're much more rational regarding copyright issues and technology accessibility than their forbears.

      So anything the IP companies can do to curb digital freedoms will curb what libraries of the future will be able to provide.

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

  • icon
    Erik Zeek (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:39am

    Scarry...

    to think that our most reliable DNS servers will be in China.

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

  • identicon
    Danny, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:42am

    I think its worse than that.

    Instead, the MPAA seems to be relying on the "but we don't think that'll happen!" argument.

    I don't know that passage you quote at the end sounds more like, "so what if it breaks, it can be fixed!". As in its okay if the internet could be broken because someone else (the technological community) well clean up the mess for them.

    In my opinion I think its worse to shrug off concerns because someone will be around to clean up the mess than to pretend the mess can't be made.

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

  • identicon
    Ur mom, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:51am

    Mike Masnick is clearly against America, and freedom.

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

    • icon
      Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:04am

      Re:

      I agree, being for the 1st,4th,14th amendments is so un-american.

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

    • identicon
      HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      FFFFFFFFFFFFFRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, Merica, fuck yeah. We like both kinds of music, country and western.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:04am

    Roll out more support for pirates, thieves, and scammers.

    It makes this place look so, well, complete.

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

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:18am

      Re:

      It's amazing when the very people who built the internet are decried as not knowing what they're talking about. Meanwhile, technological know-nothings are bending political ears.

      Amazing....

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

      • icon
        non-anonymous coward (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:25am

        Re: Re:

        The problem is that the experts keep forgetting to explain the internet as "a series of tubes" so that congress will understand.

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

        • icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You see, Senator, the interwebz is a series of tubes. The problem with blocking one of these tubes is that it will clog the system and eventually shit will shoot directly into your face while you're trying to tweet pictures of your man-parts to young girls/boys (depending on if you're democrat/republican).

          A vote for this is a vote for faulty pipes, sirs. Which is why we, as your local plumbers union, are in favor of it....

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:10pm

        Re: Re:

        Its not what you know, its who you know.

        Also, technologists don't have the money nor the high visibility to get the notice of a politician. Its really not that surprising that this will be ignored until its [nearly] too late.

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

    • identicon
      rubberpants, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:22pm

      Re:

      That's the best you can do? That's so lame.

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

  • icon
    The Incoherent One (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:05am

    So....

    What happens if this gets signed into law, and noting changes?

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

    • identicon
      Howard the Duck, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:15am

      Re: So....

      It remains. Just like the universal tax...

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

    • icon
      Mike42 (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:20am

      Re: So....

      Then obviously this law was not enough. The sneakernet's obviously too entrenched, and they'll have to ban portable hard drives and thumb drives over 2meg. (Most mp3's are > 3 meg)
      If this fails, then they will have had time to develop the "Pay per Play" implatable chip which detects any music or soundtrack you listen to and deducts payments from your bank account accordingly. It will be powered by brain waves, which will make it useless to implant in any member of Congress or the White House, as well as most judges.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:21am

      Re: So....

      practically nothing will change, yes this will break the dns system, but you can bet your ass any tard with google can figure out how to route to one that actually works like its supposed to.

      the really interesting thing to watch change is the new attack vectors this would open up, there will be phishing dns servers, rootkit/botnet dnsservers, sniffing dns servers, honeypot dns servers, all the sudden you automatically distrust your dns.

      but then someone'll just create a p2p dns system and give em all the finger

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:13pm

      Re: So....

      Stricter laws don't work! We need stricter laws!

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

      • identicon
        HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:28am

        Re: Re: So....

        We need strict laws requiring the enforcement of stricter laws and strict penalties for not enforcing the stricter strict law laws

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:11am

    FUD.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:16am

      Re:

      Well, at least to the extent the title to this article suggests that the legislation will "break" the internet.

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

      • icon
        deane (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:27am

        Re: Re:

        I'd prefer to trust the guys that created the internet and fully understand the technology involved. MPAA/RIAA would get sued by all the geeks I bet for their livelyhoods since they'd have to work 24/7/365 to make patches due to the fact that the internet won't run the way it was designed. or maybe google/microsoft/all the rest of the big companies might just decide its time to BUYOUT ALL the recording companies and just shut RIAA/MPAA DOWN!

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

        • identicon
          Creephhi, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If this goes to far Microsoft or Google or Apple will darken the skies with lawyers. I would be betting on Apple to be the first. Those guys have deep pockets and can cause chaos if they feel like it, it's just a matter of when this crap gets in their way. Steve Jobs a liked by the recording industry?? No not so much even though his way has caught on in a big way.....

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:27am

      Re:

      "FUD"? Really?

      There are only a few dozen people on this planet that I feel have a level of Internet clue that exceeds mine. Three of them are among the authors of that document.

      So let me suggest that unless your Internet/ARPAnet operational experience (merely being a user doesn't count) is measured in a significant fraction of a century that you're completely unqualified to critique their work. You're likely unqualified to even COMPREHEND their work.

      If you disagree, then I invite you to raise *specific* technical points. Please be sure to detail your reasoning and provide references to either the relevant RFCs or working code.

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

    • icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:31am

      Re:

      No analysis, all trolling.

      Just report and move on. No need to feed this one.

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

  • identicon
    ts, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:27am

    "The Motion Picture Association of America, a key supporter of the bill, issued a statement on Thursday strongly disputing these claims. Web users are unlikely to reconfigure their computers to circumvent the filtering, the MPAA said, and the security standards cited by the authors ought to be flexible enough to allow for IP protection."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!1

    Seriously, many legitimate sites WILL be taken down.. and the evil pirates will be the only people that can actually get to the sites they want to visit. How long did it take for the Firefox plugin to be created that does exactly this? A day.. if that?

    Senator Wyden sums it up very nicely:

    "By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, [the legislation] represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives,"

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

  • identicon
    Jeff, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:48am

    And the sad thing is that our elected officials are likely to buy that explanation from the MPAA before listening to those folks who actually helped build the very internet architecture they're about to break.


    Our elected officials will buy it because that's what the entertainment industry is selling!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:13pm

    "DNSSEC was designed to provide consumers with a secure, trusted connection to services like online banking, commercial transactions, and electronic medical records - not to foreign websites operated by criminals for the purpose of offering counterfeit and infringing works."

    Talk about redefining DNSSEC!

    When their initial sentence is so completely wrong, it's hard to give credence to anything that follows.

    For the record, DNSSEC was designedto provide a trusted name lookup (not connection) service for all providers on the internet. What those providers provide is not part of the specification except insofar as it relates to doman name resolution.

    The intent or legality of the providers is not relevant to DNSSEC, any more than it's relevant to the old-fashioned phone books (remember those?) what those being listed do for a living. Nor should it be.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:15pm

    What you all are missing, and it underscores their cluelessness even more, is they obviouly do not understand what DNSSEC even is. Their statement is referencing HTTPS, not DNSSEC.

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

  • identicon
    known coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:41pm

    one more time and slowly

    I can see DNSSEC being used for nefarious purposes itself, but that is no reason to give the internet, which is a transport medium to a small slice of the content providers.

    The internet is about connecting users, to each other. If some of those users are content providers who can make money from the internet, god bless them. The internet is not owned by them and they have no defacto right to have any laws they like.

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

  • icon
    btr1701 (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:08pm

    Rogue Sites

    Why doesn't anyone call these buffoons out on this whole "rogue site" nonsense.

    A site is either legal or it's illegal. If it's illegal, call it that. If it's legal, then it's doing nothing wrong and calling it "rogue" is misleading and inaccurate at best, and defamatory at worst.

    The real definition of "rogue site" is "any site we don't like and can't do anything about because they're not actually breaking the law".

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:23pm

    What the MPAA fails to take into account is that even if it turns out that there are technical ways to work around the things this bill breaks, the equally broken patent system will prevent many of these measures from being brought to market in a timely and cost effective manner.

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

  • identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:55pm

    THE USA IS BROKE

    the better question all should be asking is how to pay your bills before you whine about anyhting and closing up your country to 150 billion year copyright ...how is that making your national debt go away LOL, is it working for ya?

    NO? maybe a revolution in spirit is required and a dumping of copyright to sane levels MIGHT just do it...TILL then carry on and wreck yourselves more more and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that COPYRIGHT as is WILL NOT WORK.

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

  • icon
    hmm (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 9:21am

    Once again

    The MPAA/RIAA show themselves in their true colors.

    They want to basically police peoples actions and thoughts.

    A year or two ago I'd just have assumed they were moderately stupid and greedy but it's turned a corner since then and they're now maliciously trying to hold technology back and harm humanity.

    Surely thats a cause for anyone working for the MPAA/RIAA to be investigated/arrested as thats an international crime against our entire species.

    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
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Copymouse
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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