New Video On How PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet
from the everything-is-a-remix... dept
The folks behind Fight For the Future have teamed up with Kirby Ferguson, who created the excellent everything is a remix series, have teamed up to put together a video about the problems with PROTECT IP/E-PARASITES. It’s worth a watch… and passing it on to others:
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, e-parasites, internet, protect ip
Comments on “New Video On How PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet”
Why doesn’t that video mention 95+ year copy protection lengths, and perpetual extensions that result in nothing ever entering the public domain anymore, as part of our abusive system?
Re: Re:
(and it should also mention that the constitution states that copy protection should last a limited time, but the government-industrial complex has eventually learned to interpret that very broadly and that the courts have agreed with their ridiculous interpretation. This will convince more people that judges are highly likely to make bad decisions based on these new proposed laws as well, if they can’t make good decisions with copy protection lengths and the constitution, why should we trust them not to take down what should be legitimately emerging competition).
Re: Re:
Why doesn’t that video mention 95+ year copy protection lengths, and perpetual extensions that result in nothing ever entering the public domain anymore, as part of our abusive system?
That can be found here
Re: Re: Re:
Great Link!
Re: Re:
This is exactly why I refuse to pay for content anymore. The MAFIAA has stolen vast amounts of content out of the public domain. If they claim there is no fair use, and continue to steal from the public domain, I am entitled to ignore copyright just as quickly as they ignore my rights.
Entitled? check!
Re: Re: Re:
But.. But.. You’re costing the industry MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollarZ!
No mobile version of the video. Why? I don’t know. Just another artificial scarcity that pisses off consumers.
Re: Re:
Mobile version?? Let me guess. You have an iPhone.
Re: Re: Re:
Probably, it works on both my Android phones (one’s for terrorising the MAFIAA, the other’s for piracy, of course! :p)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Odd, it doesn’t work on mine…
As soon as they start with the premise of “giving private corporation the right to censor the internet” they pretty much lost me. They are confusing enforcing their rights with censorship. That very basic mistake makes the rest of the message suck.
Re: Re:
“They are confusing enforcing their rights with censorship.”
Not if it is their legal right to censor. Just like it’s the broadcasting and cableco cartel’s legal right to censor that which they don’t like from being distributed via broadcasting airwaves and cableco infrastructure, thanks to our broken legal system that allows them to. The result, we have outrageously indefensible IP and copy protection laws and criticisms are hardly ever distributed via these communication channels. Instead, what we see is pro-IP propaganda. We have practically indefensible anti-competitive taxi cab monopoly laws, along with many many other indefensible anti-competitive laws, and criticisms are censored from these communication channels (thanks to the government). Censorship is real.
Re: Re:
Enforcing their rights is just that. It does not include closing down stores that sell a proportion of counterfeit goods, nor does it include arbitrary confiscation of a vehicle that may have an unauthorised LV handbag sold out of it on a Saturday morning.
So, tell me again why they should have the ‘right’ to block websites with no oversight?
Re: Re:
really?! First off, do you want corporations being judge, jury, and executioner? And despite the corporations good intent, do you think they will never use this law to censor some person or group who may be telling some unseemly truth about their service or product? This is already happening with our existing laws, like the DMCA. Are you really this naive or simply a troll?
Re: Re: Re:
What can I say, the dude get off on corporate power.
it turns him/her on
Re: Re: Re:
“First off, do you want corporations being judge, jury, and executioner?”
Dredd Corporation
Re: Re: Re:
“And despite the corporations good intent”
Oh god … laughing so hard I tore a muscle in my gut, thanks I needed that.
Re: Re:
I’ll assume your post was added with a sincere belief, so I’m going to address this remark:
“They are confusing enforcing their rights with censorship.”
What rights do they have which they did not grant themselves through previous lobbying.
Would you sit back and allow the President of the United States to modify law so they may do more than two terms?
This is precisely what the entertainment industry did. It extended copyright terms so it can empower itself.
The industry is corrupt, breaks many US laws themselves, yet somehow manages to get what it wants with these bills.
Something’s wrong and it starts with the violation of our rights.
Re: Re: Re:
When you come up with a way for the rights of the copyright holder to be respected as quickly as they can be violated, we can talk about balance. Until then, those who choose to break the law will always have an advantage over those who’s rights they have violated.
As a side note, this law is basically the answer to all your snickering “move it off shore” comments. All the stuff that tries to hide outside of the US and act like US law doesn’t apply when dealing with US citizens… it all has come home to roost.
“ya do it to yourself, just you, you and no one else…” – thanks to Thom Yorke for providing perhaps the perfect sentiment for this situation.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But in a world where everyone is a copyright holder . . .
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think you want Thom Yorke’s opinion of his old record label or the recording industry.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I know his opinion of his record label: It is something like: “I am a millionaire now, and known all over the world as a result of your marketing efforts. Piss off I don’t need your anymore” – but I doubt he would ever be that honest about it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC 27, you must learn to stop seeing the situation in terms of violations of rights. No such rights have been violated. No one has the right to an income. They have only the right to attempt to make an income. The kind of control you seek over content is no longer possible, in any way. The infinite nature of digital prevents it. When content can be spread as easily as copy & paste, any attempts at control are futile. Accept reality and the advance of technology and learn to adapt, and you may find success. Do not do so, and you will undoubtedly fail.
In response to other comments about attempting to get Congress to enact change, I will say this: the system is broken. Completely broken. Such a system cannot be truly changed from within. Only from outside the system. That is why collectives such as Anonymous are the only ones who can affect the legacy groups directly and decisively. And, I believe, that is part of what must happen for true change to occur. The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery and their power broken. That cannot be done from inside the system.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Jesus Christ, I’ve been saying this for months, except I’ve been trying to be pithy about it (No-one deserves to get paid).
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It’s true you have been saying it and I agree with you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery and their power broken. That cannot be done from inside the system.”
If by “system” you mean corporate-government, regulatory capture, and lobbying system, then yes you are correct and incorrect at the same time. The system is actually many smaller systems each fighting for its own turf. Pharma, energy, content, communications, manufacturing, transportation, etc, all have their own set of rules and turf to protect. The huge kink in the armor of the system as a whole is the profit motive. It can be used to pit one sector against another.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you come up with a way for the rights of the copyright holder to be respected as quickly as they can be violated,
Their rights are corrupt in the first place so trying to respect them will not lead to a good place.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So in other words, it’s perfectly acceptable to give large corporations who have a history of abusing existing laws to censor speech they don’t like the unfettered legal power to break the greatest global communications tool ever invented and to censor *anyone* they want simply because nobody has invented the ability to make water not wet?
Fuck you.
Taking off on clever AC @ #4: No GIF version of the video either!
But doubt I’m missing much. About all we cand do is whine now.
New contest: guess how long it’ll be before Rapidshare is blocked in the US. Closest wins a stack of shiny new recordable DVDs.
E-PARASITE makes sense
It just works. The entertainment industry is a parasite who is trying to suck the lifeblood out of it’s artists, not helping them, and is now trying to cripple e-everything.
They are the ultimate e-parasites, and the bill is aimed at helping these parasites suck more blood, so the bill is aptly named.
Re: E-PARASITE makes sense
Agreed!
I wish it said “Write TO Congress Now” at the end
Re: Re:
Writing the word “congress” on a sheet of paper is just as effective as writing to Congress. Perhaps more. Your paper doesn’t ignore you and outsource your letter to some fratboy intern because you’re not their sugar daddy.
Re: Re: Re:
So Congresscritters are pornstars now?
….*brain breaks, howling about the images whilst babbling Cthulhoid phrases*
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Congresscritters are pornstars now?
Former U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner maybe.
We all know the real problem
The real problem it seems, from a logical point of view, is that copyright is what needs to change, that it is hampering the innovation, that it is the problem. But of course, since most governments are bribed (lobbying) by the biggest profiteers of copyright, you won’t see that change.
Perhaps though censoring is what the United States wants to do. After all, as the video mentions, the internet has been used to over-through corrupt regimes, and as the evidence shows, the American government is the most corrupt regime on the planet. Perhaps they are trying to stop themselves from being over-thrown and out of power.
Re: We all know the real problem
Didn’t know whether to flag this as insightful or funny – what the hell, I’ve given you both.
Ok. AC from post number 5. If you think that the content corporations are ONLY going to use this to protect themselves against ONLY illegal uses of their content, please tell me where you bought those rose colored glasses…reality is too depressing and I could really use a pair that work as well as yours.
Just one of the many potential avenues for abuse is fair use. I am legally allowed to take a song/music video and parody it, or use it in a “transformative way.” Its part of the law. Big companies like to pretend that isn’t the case and already use the law to try and censor as much fair use as they can find. Also, fair use is still a really grey area, meaning to figure out what constitues fair use usally requires a long court battle. Were this act to pass if I tried to start a website dedicated to parody songs (like Weird Al, say) any one of the music companies could shut my website down instantly. I would get no hits from google, couldnt tell people my URL since it would be blocked, and couldnt make any money off the site because payment processors would be bound to stop paying me, JUST because some company said so, and EVEN IF they are blatantly wrong. It would take a long and expensive court battle that I can’t afford, but the music industry can.
And stuff like that WILL happen, because there’s no negative conseqences for them to block me falsely. So, in reality they could just SAY any site infringes their rights, shut it down for ages while the court decides, and when it eventually comes out that they are dead wrong, it will cost them NOTHING!!! What there needs to be is a 1 strike rule. One false accusation, One infringement on the first amendment, and that company is no longer allowed to use ANY takedowns.
i think the only way that this and any other government is going to learn is to let them do whatever they like. once everything has gone to rat shit, perhaps then they will learn that not only were the experts warnings right but to allow a certain industry to have exactly what it wants at the expense of everything/everyone else, just leads to a complete and utter f**k up! and sooner or later, the people will say enough is enough!
I don’t get how big content thinks that they can legislate the cat back into the bag. Short of completely shutting down the internet, there is no way from keeping information from someone. Look at China, they probably have the most censorship of any country, but you can still get anything you want.
Every time IP creates a new mole, it gets whacked. Sure, they can slow it down, or cause it to re route, but when they do, the big rock is now many small ones and harder to find….
Good luck changing anyones mind with this piece of shit.
PROTECT IP - best of both worlds
This is a perfect opportunity for both the **AA and the government. It grants corporations the ability to censor, make everyone a criminal, gain more power, and make lawyers rich. The government likes this bill for exactly the same reasons. Isn’t it obvious that the US government and corporations are skipping carelessly, hand-in-hand through a flowery meadow in the mid-morning sunlight…and you are the grass.
Re: PROTECT IP - best of both worlds
Correction: we’re not the grass, that’s supposedly the content. We’re the insects in the grass, too busy smoking it in our trailer parks while a small monority get filthy rich off our work through Eminent domain (translation: naked governmental theft).
This is an interesting area.
Content owners I think have a right to do with their content as they wish BUT by wanting to give legitimate customers the ability to watch or listen to their DRM’d content they have given everyone the ability to listen to this DRM’d content. So they can’t use technology to protect their content without banning technologies…which is the equivalent of banning books and that connotation is bad.
So, Let’s mess with DNS…bad idea.
Let’s make the ISP’s block certain URLs…switch to IP
Let’s make the ISP’s block IP addresses. Switch to proxy sites.
Let’s not block anything and instead keep track of who visits certain IPs and make it a criminal action. You’ve now turned most of the country in some form into a criminal…not to mention how it it’d be to “frame” someone now.
Before long it’ll turn into a horrible mess. There really isn’t a solid answer. Has our entertainment industry here in the U.S. lost any real money? Have they laid off workers, hah?
[Radio] Aνάλυση του Δημήτρη Καζάκη για το κούρεμα. http://shar.es/blAxl
[Radio] Aνάλυση του Δημήτρη Καζάκη για το κούρεμα. http://shar.es/blAxl