Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It's 100,000

from the hollywood-math dept

It's no secret that the Hollywood studios have a reputation for highly questionable accounting practices, and apparently that carries over into their attempts to show "support" for censoring the internet via PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE. A few weeks ago, we wrote about the totally bogus group CreativeAmerica, which is an astroturfing group set up by the major Hollywood studios, pretending to be a "grassroots" group. Dig a little, and you'll find that CreativeAmerica was actually set up by Disney, Warnber Bros., NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox and Sony Pictures. "Grassroots" that is not. It's made even more obvious by the fact that the folks at CreativeAmerica don't even hide it. If this were really an upstart grassroots campaign, would NBC Universal hand out its mugs to employees, and if it were really an upstarts grassroots campaign, would 20th Century Fox put up a giant banner on its studio lot for the group?

The answer is no. Anyone who takes a few seconds to investigate recognizes that this is a slick studio-run operation... from the same studios that use creative math to never pay royalties to actors in even some of the most successful movies of all time.

So is it really any surprise that they're playing fast and loose with the facts when it comes to puffing up their support. Yesterday, CreativeAmerica (and the MPAA) hyped up on Twitter that members had sent over 100,000 letters to Congress in support of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE. Of course, if you actually went to CreativeAmerica's website, where the letter generator existed (and, again, unlike all of the letter generators for those against these bills, on CreativeAmerica's site, no creativity is allowed -- you can only send their exact message) you see the following:
I'm pretty sure I can count. And, um, 4,191 appears to be just a bit short of 100,000. Well, it actually appears to be 95,809 short. And while it might be okay to round up if you were actually getting close, I don't think rounding up from 4,000 to 100,000 is particularly honest. Two of our regular contributors challenged the studio-run CreativeAmerica on this, and they were both told that CreativeAmerica was also counting the people who signed a Change.org petition. First of all, a petition is not a letter. They're two separate things. So that seems a bit misleading. But, okay, in the spirit of giving Hollywood a fighting chance here, even if we grant them the petition signatures, a look at the actual petition shows the following:
Okay, that's 33,000 more signatures. Even if we take all of these at face value, we're at just about 37,500 signatures. Again, even at that point you can't round up to 100,000. Well, I mean, you can, but it makes you a blatantly intellectually dishonest liar. CreativeAmerica: creative about numbers, apparently.

Oh, and let's just take a look at the "reasons why people signed" the petition that CreativeAmerica is so proud of. It looks like almost half of the people who chose to leave a message are asking how to "unsign" the petition, because they didn't realize that the group was an astroturf group looking to go against the best interests of actual artists. Here are a few examples:




So, it seems like a bunch of the folks who "signed" the petition are now asking to back out. Just for the sake of comparison, I spoke to the folks at Demand Progress to find out how many letters they had sent... and the answer is 100,000 in the last week alone, and they have the stats to prove it. On top of that, the Fight for the Future guys have been able to get over 80,000 people to sign petitions. So if we just look at that (and note that the CreativeAmerica campaign has been going on for much more than a week), it seems like CreativeAmerica is taking after its corporate masters on PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE: ignore what the data actually says and lie, lie, lie... all the way up to Capitol Hill.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:23am

    Wow. And I thought my government was creative with numbers.

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:24am

    They are still avoiding the truth

    I have asked them again to further clarify both on Twitter and Facebook. Still waiting for a response. As of now only these two sources are the basis of the 100,000 figure.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:24am

    IP maximists, buckle up. Your lobbying is about to get a WHOLE LOT more difficult. and trying to disingenuously fool the public like this is a big no no.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:25am

    Re: They are still avoiding the truth

    Ooh. They just responded:

    Each signature at our online petition generates three letters, one to each Senator and one to the signer's Representative

    https://www.facebook.com/creativeamerica/posts/154413744656794?notif_t=share_reply

    So these aren't 100,000 people sending letters, this is 100,000 form letters being sent. Makes sense now.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth

    That's creative!

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:29am

    You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    Inconceivable!

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:32am

    If we don't pass PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE, all those productive people in the field of creative accounting will be out of work.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:34am

    Re:

    and I find it amusing that IP maximists got so many signatures by trying to utilize public support for an opposite position (and hence fooling them). Shows just how little support they get and how much opposition they get.

    BTW, I don't see how this can't be seen as some sort of fraud. (Vague trademark and IP) Infringement is unacceptable and punishable with ridiculous penalties yet this is somehow OK? Shouldn't the government come in and penalize these people? Oh, that's right, they contribute too much money to political campaigns to ever have the government go after them for behavior that's even worse than what normal people get severely punished for. They are subject to the high court treatment.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:35am

    and creative astroturfing! Don't forget about that.

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:36am

    Re:

    and creative astroturfing! Don't forget about that.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:37am

    PROTECT THE PARASITES is important to the future of american laywers and lobbists. Without this bill going through where would they be.

    Sad times ahead if it doesn't.

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth

    To think, if they went a step further, and also sent a letter to the President, Vice President, house leader, senate leader and state department they could almost have 300,000 thousand letters sent! Of course, they would still have less then 40,000 supporters, many of which want to pull their support... but the NUMBER OF LETTERS! Focus on what is important.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth

    Strike out many, and replace with some. Lets not get carried away like them, heh...

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:43am

    I've been following their FB page, and the responses from their supporters are so wacky and random that it's kind of sad. They recently bragged that the Stage Directors and Choreographers Society joined their cause, and the first response was:

    Fight mp3s by highlighting the power of vinyl. Inform that only vinyl provides the full emotional experience of music.

    Er... okay. Then there's this random paranoid blab from someone who isn't even sure what they are scared of:

    Its extremely important to protect ones' work. Being spied upon, or letting your work slip through hackers, or otherwise...needs more representation. Piracy is against all filmmakers, and other artists. The fight continues.

    Then there's this guy - and while my heart goes out to him in a general sense, it's kind of sad that he tries to blame his entire life situation of the past four years on copyright infringement - and then tries to solicit donations:

    I am unemployed and out of work since 2007 because of this kinda thing, you ask what harm is it in a little download with out paying.... Well its families that split up, broken up, torn up, over not having anymore income to support them. It only take a $1 to turn it around from each person who ever downloaded a video, a song, or a adult stream. All I ask is you help my family and others like mine in this new age of communication and pay to paypal account jimmanzo69@msn.com

    But my all-time favourite is this one. We've all heard the bullshit "if you didn't pay for it, it's infringement" line before, but one Creative America supporter takes it to a whole new level, apparently stating that no art can ever be distributed to anyone other than the artist under any circumstances, paid or otherwise:

    If you didn't create it and use it, you stole it!

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:52am

    Grassroots

    The term "grassroots" has been so misused it's basically lost all meaning at this point. Not unlike "rogue site", "terrorist", "socialism", "beta", "compromise", "transparency", "breaking news", "paradigm", "leverage", "incentivize", "stakeholder", "alignment", "bandwidth", "the cloud", "wiki", "meme", "lulz", "kool-aid", "open", and "truth."

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:52am

    Re:

    Those can't be real replies or a real group. That has to be some major trolling, nobody can be that big of luddite can they?

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:52am

    It's NOT a lie.....!

    ..... they got the Franklin, McKinley and Cleveland brothers to explain it carefully and that was very convincing. :-)

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:54am

    Re: Grassroots

    The magic of marketing.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:57am

    Mike, you need one more thread of PROTECT-IP for the week to make a Yahtzee! Keep up the good work at fear mongering!

    Oh, and you don't think perhaps they have more than one website that could have sent "letters"?

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:00am

    Re:

    Try reading the post and comments. They have two pages, adding up to under 50k people so far - but they just explained on their FB page that one of those pages sends out three letters for everyone who signs. Thus the statement "over 100,000 letters" was not untrue - but was certainly misleading. Add to that the fact that nearly half of the people who added a comment to the petition page were complaining that they had been tricked into signing or that Creative America is not what it seems to be, and you get a much less impressive picture of their support numbers than the one they were hoping to push.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:01am

    Re:

    Seriously. The concept that an idea or information can be the exclusive property of an individual is already a stretch, and an uneasy one at that. I'm not entirely against the concept but IP maximalists are really going to the outer limits these days with it. Personally, I think it needs to be dialed back a notch, not turned up to 11.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    The Incoherent One (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:03am

    Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    I hope that you have built up your resistance to Iocane powder.

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:05am

    Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth

    I wonder (hope) that the letters spammed out by this petition include all the comments about wishing to unsign the petition. That Wolff be amazing.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re:

    "Shows just how little support they get and how much opposition they get."

    No it shows how many content creators blindly follow the prescribed path... basically they tell the artists "This bill is to help support artists" and they fire off their 3 letters to congress... THEN go back and read what they did. All of these people wanting to "unsign" are the problem with the industry. Without these sheep, the MAFIAA would be powerless.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Internet. Prepare to die.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Rich, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:10am

    Re: Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    Stop saying that!!! Greatest movie ever.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    The Incoherent One (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:11am

    Re:

    The number of posts being spent on E-Parasites directly correlates to how important it is that we stop this madness before its too late. Each post highlights some of the different parts of the why this bill is so dangerous. While some may overlap the posts all stand on their own.

    In this case the post is highlighting the bogus campaigns which have sprung up in support of this terrible act. Besides, debunking bullshit is the Internets great past time. Where else can you watch Netflix, and make people look stupid all at the same time.

     

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

  28.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:12am

    Re:

    Wow...

    "Fight mp3s by highlighting the power of vinyl. Inform that only vinyl provides the full emotional experience of music."

    Erm, yeah. Vinyl works great in my iPhone. It's convenient to carry around as well. The only reason why vinyl is no longer a big seller is because people have forgotten the emotional experience! There can be no other reason!!!

    "Being spied upon, or letting your work slip through hackers, or otherwise...needs more representation. Piracy is against all filmmakers, and other artists."

    Erm, so this guy thinks that piracy is the same as industrial espionage?

    "I am unemployed and out of work since 2007 "

    Sorry to hear that.

    "because of this kinda thing"

    Ah, so he failed in business at around the start of a global economic collapse? Shocking. I wonder if he has any proof that he lost money due to piracy, or just assumed that? I'll assume the latter. I'll take a wild guess that the guy doesn't have any proof as to what kinda thing caused his problems.

    "All I ask is you help my family and others like mine in this new age of communication and pay to paypal account jimmanzo69@msn.com"

    Ah, I get the problem. He's deluded. He wants charity for imagined slights, and apparently wants the full $1 that iTunes would have charged rather than the crumbs he would have had left after Apple/label/etc cuts.

    I had a look at that page, and either that post has been deleted or it's hidden in a view somewhere. No matter.

    A quick Google search suggests that this is a guy called Jim Manzo, who apparently played for some bands I've never heard of. Unless I'm very much mistaken, this guy has more problems than a few downloaded files.

    "If you didn't create it and use it, you stole it!"

    Yeah, that's about the level of some of these people. Reality seems to be escaping them.

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:12am

    Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    Inconceivable!

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:12am

    Re: Re:

    Thus the statement "over 100,000 letters" was not untrue - but was certainly misleading.

    Sort of like Masnick's steady stream of FUD?

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re:

    Thus the statement "over 100,000 letters" was not untrue - but was certainly misleading.

    Sort of like Masnick's steady stream of FUD?

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:13am

    Re:

    ...letting your work slip through hackers

    Looks like someone needs a better brand of hacker.

    I'm writing to my congressperson now.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    Curse you auto-correct! You've made a fool out of me for the last time...

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:14am

    Re:

    Let me see if I understand you correctly:

    You're upset because you feel there have been too many posts on this subject recently and you felt it was important to take time out of your day to state that in a comment.

    What I want to know is, who is holding a gun to your head forcing you to visit this site every time a new article is posted? If you can't talk openly, reply with "There's water in the basement and the pilot light is out" and we'll send help.

    By the way, when you publicize your identity and start your own blog then you can make sure that every post is about something you think is important. Thanks again for contributing to the discussion.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not really, no.

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:17am

    [Citation Needed]1

    Bibliography:
    1. Paraphrased from Dark Helmet, Comment: Re:)

     

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

  37.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:17am

    Re:

    How dare Mike report on an important news issue! How dare he report on new developments!

    Really?

    "Oh, and you don't think perhaps they have more than one website that could have sent "letters"?"

    If you stop trolling for long enough to read the other comments, you'd see that the reason for the figures has already been confirmed, and that it's a blatant misdirection. Not only that, but it appears to be based on the signatories who are already trying to remove their support that they feel they were tricked into giving.

    But, facts are not your strong suit, are they?

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:18am

    Re:

    Reply to fail, reposting where it should be..

     

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

  39.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:18am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Holy shit did you just admit that Mike's concerns are "not untrue"?

    That's a big step for you!

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:18am

    Re: Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    and now the sign-in function fails me? IT IS A CONSPIRACY I SAY.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:18am

    Dig a little, and you'll find that CreativeAmerica was actually set up by Disney, Warnber Bros., NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox and Sony Pictures.

    And dig deeper still, or simply be completely honest- and you will find that the entertainment unions representing hundreds of thousands of motion picture and television workers were also founding members who also set up Creative America.

    Hey Masnick, when are we going to see a story on how EFF and CDT have been co-opted by millions of dollars from Google?

     

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

  42.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:19am

    Re:

    [Citation Needed]1

    Bibliography:
    1. Paraphrased from Dark Helmet, Comment: Re:

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:21am

    Demand Progress

    Any chance for a link to the stats for Demand Progress? I don't doubt what you say, I just like numbers.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, I see the ACs are here in full force at last. Is this the time the daycare centres let out, or clocking on time for the paid shills? I lose track, damn time zones :)

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:24am

    Re: Re:

    "Looks like someone needs a better brand of hacker."

    That's because people are mistaking the Script Kiddy brand for the Hacker brand. There's a trademark violation in there somewhere. Someone should sue.

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    Where's the Brute squad when it's needed.

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    "Stop". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

     

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

  48.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:28am

    Re:

    And dig a little deeper than THAT, and you will see that the people from those worker unions who comment and get involved with Creative America are actually mostly complaining about STUDIOS mistreating workers - not about piracy. They have been tricked into thinking that Creative America is standing up for artist and worker rights, when in fact it was founded by the studios who are the number-one abusers of those rights.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:29am

    Re:

    "Hey Masnick, when are we going to see a story on how EFF and CDT have been co-opted by millions of dollars from Google?"

    When it actually happens. Now put your tin foil hat back on.

     

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

  50.  
    icon
    Miff (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:29am

    So by Creative America's math, Fight for the Future has sent several million letters!

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well, they would, but for some reaon, the documents filed online went missing after a DDoS attack on the Court servers...

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Holy shit did you just admit that Mike's concerns are "not untrue"?

    That's a big step for you!


    Every side in a debate seeks to portray its position in the most favorable light. Fact is, 100,000 letters (e-mails) went out. It's no different than Masnick crowing about how the studios were funding CreativeAmerica but omitted disclosing the fact that the entertainment unions that represent hundreds of thousands of industry workers also are founding members. He knows that disclosing that waters down his argument..... considerably. Anyway, defeating this bill is as futile as your career as a poet/musician. If I were you I'd stop wasting my time on both and enroll in the local vo-tech and learn plumbing or something. That way you'd be able to make a useful contribution to society and make enough money to pay for content.

     

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

  53.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    I'm on the Brute Squad.

     

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

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:33am

    Re:

    Creative math. After all, math is about generating creative solutions, right?

     

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

  55.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:34am

    Re:

    Yes, because it's impossible that a cartel of closely-knit corporations could be in charge of an organisation because other people are involved. But, two organisations HAVE to be the puppets of a single corporation and if Mike doesn't report the conspiracy he's in on it!

    Meds. Back on them, please.

     

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

  56.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re:

    CreativeAmerica obviously held a gun to his head and a case full of Benjamins behind a button.

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "the entertainment unions"

    The entertainment union executives.

    There, fixed that for you.

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually, oddly enough this is the time where daycare centres/elementary schools (grades Pre-K through 1st) get out. Coincidence perhaps. Then again, maybe not.

    Oh, in my time zone it is currently 11:36 AM. I might be off by half an hour (give or take) from when the daycares/early grades get out. But I'm pretty sure it's about now.

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, ad-hom much?

    (Protip: It detracts from your argument and makes you appear petty and desperate)

     

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

  60.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:37am

    Re: Re:

    No, that's SCIENCE! Math is the language of the universe. IT even holds the secret to time- and space-travel!

     

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

  61.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:41am

    Re: Demand Progress

    Over on the bottom right of this page shows a figure of over 250,000 signatories:

    http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

     

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

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Marcus, it's on par with Mike starting an "artists" protest letter, and getting it signed by a handful of people that most of us don't know, and claiming to represent the artists.

    It's the same reason why step two is turning to be such a brick. Only 5 threads over there with even an answer in the last 7 days, and some of those are from staff. Techdirt / Floor64 / Step 2 isn't anything most artists are involved with, or have any interest in.

    As the other coward said, one site paints the other side as incompetent, using tricks and "astroturfing" to create the appearance of support. Mike is using many of the same techniques right now, effectively turning his site into an anti-PROTECT-IP political site, rather than just a blog. He has attacked the bill supporters as a whole, individually, and as the groups they represent (including attacking the fire fighters who just want safe smoke detectors and equipment to do their jobs). Just remember that when you think to attack the other side, because your fearless leader is doing the very same. You just don't notice it because you agree with him.

     

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

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re:

    "When it actually happens"

    So he posted it a couple of years ago?

     

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

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If members of these entertainment unions support this bill, why don't they individually support petitions themselves? They could just as easily do so. Instead, the MPAA et al need to fool the public with an astroturfing scam to get people to sign it. With regards to valid signatures, all I see is crickets.

    "It's no different than Masnick crowing about how the studios were funding CreativeAmerica but omitted disclosing the fact that the entertainment unions that represent hundreds of thousands of industry workers also are founding members."

    That's why IP maximists can't start their own blogs, open them up to comments, and expect a large audience. No, they have to come here for a large audience. They have to resort to abusing their government established media monopoly to persuade others of their indefensible position while censoring criticisms and disallowing people like MM the ability to criticize IP.

    Fact is, IP maximists are wrong about most of their techdirt comments. They were wrong about Rightshaven, more and more courts seem to unanimously disagree with them. They were wrong about claiming that more people sent letters because the IP lobby could have had more websites sending letters, turns out the IP lobby was being misleading. The list goes on. IP maximists have the huge record of being wrong on almost everything. Guess what. You're wrong on this too. Your intuition sucks. You get almost everything wrong. You're just willfully stupid and trying to spread more FUD. No one believes it. That's why more and more people are opposing your position. The more you act willfully stupid the more resistance you'll have and the more difficult it'll be for you to get any bills through. You need to change your strategy here. It's not working. and if you continue to deny it and continue with your current strategy, you will be in for a rude awakening as more and more people disagree with you. Your future will not look nice. You will not get any more bills through. The public will make sure of it.

     

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

  65.  
    icon
    Annoyed (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    I demand this quote be removed. This is blatant trafficking in copyrighted material.

    Wait. Leave it up until we get ePARASITE passed.

    Carry on.

     

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

  66.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:49am

    The three major contenders

    I think it's going to be pertinent to get to the major complaints about this petition and nip it in the bud.

    Jason Stall tried to fight piracy and lost. Here are his words:

    I am signing because as an independent filmmaker / Producer there is no bigger issue to our industry. Content theft is destroying my art and my livelihood. It is taking money from my pocket, all my teams pocket and leaves no return for our investors that support and fund our projects. This is not a "major" studio issue, it is a industry issue on every level. I am always skeptical of organizations that I don't know, but I have spent the time researching Creative American. I support this organization because it is a united effort between labor, guilds and content producers to protect the jobs and creativity of all the people who work in the industry. This includes filmmakers, crew members, actors, editors, caterers, hotel operators, restaurants, really anyone who during a production benefits from a film being made. There is no group more directly effected by content theft than independent films. Our movies have been stolen over 250,000 times. We need to go after the international criminal enterprises profiting from this theft. We need tougher legislation to be in place so we can protect our art, our jobs, our industry... Please spend the time to really research the legislation and Creative America....we need a united voice.


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

    First, content theft is not destroying him. No content is being taken, it's being shared and he has yet to figure out how to monetize. Also, people have interest in new movies, and his filmography is not that long.

    He's also dead wrong about these criminal enterprises. There are NO profit margins to piracy with either terrorist links or organized crime links. And if he's researched this, I have to criticize the facts that this legislation would put Justin Bieber as well as Richard O'Dwyer in jail.

    Whitney Boe has this to say:

    Websites trafficking in stolen film and TV content get nearly 150 million visits every day, more than 50 billion visits per year. As an independent film producer I have seen my films that I put my own money into, uploaded to the internet for free viewing. Why people don't understand this is theft is beyond me. Do you steal from the grocery store? Do you walk into a Starbucks and just take what you want without paying? Do you go to the mall, try on the clothes you like and take them home? No, because you know it's theft and you know it's not only ethically wrong but it's illegal. Yes, the big guys like Disney and Warner Bros. are supporting this because they have the money to do it. Yes, they are protecting their "corporate interests" because it's legally their profit. This is not about "censuring the internet" this is about illegal access to someone else's products. MY products, MY income, MY ability to hire people to work on my films. And before you belligerently assume I'm some Hollywood millionaire, living in a mansion, who doesn't "work" for a living - like 99% of all people here in Los Angeles, I work my ass off full-time at a "real" job just like you, clip coupons and buy generic to make ends meet, have a mortgage and drive a 13 year old Honda. And I don't steal other people's property just because everyone else is doing it. So yes, read up on this issue and maybe you'll realize you are not entitled to free music, films, TV shows, or any other form of intellectual property.


    I find it amazing that Whitney has put out trailers, but decided not to put the movie on Youtube. But she's getting mad that others are taking advantage of revenue that she's not monetizing. How is that stealing? Do I get mad at the TV for showing a commercial for my end product? Or do I find a new station that's going to pay for my content? How about building new content and utilizing the space that is given?

    And the most realistic one (IMO) is Noshayah DaMuzikbox

    I am signing this because I have been a part of the Music Industry since I was 12 years of age, and having my Intellectual Properties mishandled, truly is something I know I am not the only one this is happening to. Is there anything being done about it? NO! Something should be done. The Companies, and Lawyers who are all a part of this happening to someone should seriously be looked into. After releasing 4 Studio Albums, which has been distributed by a very powerful Independent, coupled with Major Label(s)... my ASCAP checks are as little as $0.49. When people don't have the money to pay high powered Lawyers to help them in their Suits to justice, they just fall by the wayside, and that's unfair. Why are the laws set up to the point where it's almost made okay for people to steal? Never mind go ahead and make money off a Creator's works and Art... this type of practice should END. For far too long powerful people have been taking advantage of those who are the Creators of Music, and Films. As a Songwriter, Composer, Producer, and now Administering my own Publishing Company, I recently had 2 of my songs used on a MAJOR TELEVISION Platform (I will not disclose the Network), but I would like to see these days put to an end. people have families to feed, homes to take care of, and livelihoods being taken away. THIS SHOULD STOP NOW! Put an end to it ALL! JUSTICE!!!


    I believe our content producer is looking at the wrong petition and that's what's sad. The CA petition is set up to work against him and his interests. And it's funny that he shows how much ASCAP is paying him. $.49 when ASCAP sues businesses for THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. It should not take lawyers to make music. It shouldn't take lawyers to protect rights already inherent to you. And if the playing field was truly level, Noshayah would be able to see practices such as RIAA accounting stop taking advantage of him.

    I've made the argument on a number of occasions and most of the data confirms. If you give people new legal avenues to content, they'll go willingly to support you. What's amazing to me is that most of the people seem to believe that the market for DVDs is limitless. But it somehow feels like people are moving to streaming content and internet based media. DVDs are on their way out the door. Or at least, they won't be bought in the numbers that they are today.

     

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

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:53am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, because it never happened.

     

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

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:53am

    Re: Re:

    "Hey Masnick, when are we going to see a story on how EFF and CDT have been co-opted by millions of dollars from Google?"

    When it actually happens. Now put your tin foil hat back on.

    How does it taste?

    The Register: Google Buzz Settlement Pays “organizations that are currently paid by [Defendant] to lobby for or to consult for the company”.


    October 31, 2011 Chris Castle

    The Register has a great recent article about the latest Google debacle, the Google Buzz class action settlement (see also Robert Levine’s piece in Bloomberg, “Google’s Spreading Tentacles of Infuence”). The article notes that the Google settlement involved “cy pres” payments to “independent” groups often called “watchdogs” like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Apparently, the selection process of the groups to receive millions in cy pres payments was a two step process. The first list of cy pres largess was objected to by the Electronic Privacy Information Center for an interesting reason as the Register notes:

    “Amongst the groups that failed to squeeze its snouts into the trough was EPIC, which complained that the selection process favored “organizations that are currently paid by [Defendant] to lobby for or to consult for the company”.

    To say the least, that’s an interesting description of the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which both hit the jackpot, receiving $1m each.”

    So there was a first cut at the cy pres process and when EPIC objected, the judge modified the settlement to include EPIC and at least one other lucky beneficiary:

    “In addition to EPIC’s ticket on the gravy train, Judge Ware managed to find $500,000 for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Why that particular faculty? It’s anyone’s guess, but quite coincidentally, the Honorable Judge Ware is a lecturer at Santa Clara University.”

    You’ve probably never heard the term “cy pres”. It is vulgarized French that has come to describe an ancient legal doctrine that first arose in application to wills and was a doctrine that allowed a court to comply with the intent of the deceased as nearly as possible when to do so directly would not be legally possible or practicable.

    But the direct contemporary translation in class action practice would be more like “snout in trough.” The cy pres process is an inside way for groups to raise essentially free money. I’m not sure of the tax implications, but I’d be interested to know if cy pres contributions are taken as a deduction for liability losses.

    For example, the ubiquitous Samuelson-Glushko legal clinic at Berkeley received contributions from The Dennis v. Metromail Cy Pres Fund, The Supnick, et al. v. Amazon, Inc. and Alexa Internet Cy Pres Fund, The UCAN v. Financial Services Companies Cy Pres Funds and the Zadeh Cy Pres Fund. Oh, and the Google Buzz Cy Pres Fund.

    They’ve done this before.

    Now imagine this scenario. A corporation that thinks itself above the law gets caught doing something illegal to potentially millions of its customers. Big liability, bad for the balance sheet. What to do? The corporation can avail itself of the class action process.

    But wait, you say. Class actions are supposed to be the heroic actions of white knights protecting consumers, right? True. But if you think that, you clearly have not been to the Temporary Autonomous Zone known as the Northern District of California with its locus in San Jose, the capitol of Silicon Valley and home to People Who Are Smarter Than We Are.

    So just go with me on this and hear out my interpretation of a class action in modern times, which will get back to “cy pres”, I promise. The corporation who has done the bad thing calls a class action law firm. They say, how about you find you some class representatives, sue us, we will do a prepackaged settlement, we’ll pay you some millions, pay the class representatives some walking around money (and maybe some non-cash goodies–like oh say stock options–we can keep between us), and then we can dump a bunch of money into the pockets of people we like through the cy pres. And then we get a class settlement that will apply to all of our customers not before the court so we can close off any liability because no one pays attention to these things and probably none of our customers will opt out of the class. Sounds good? Big money, not a lot of work? Kind of like Google Books, but without the messy scanning.

    But wait, you say–there’s more. We have heard of a “prepackaged bankruptcy” in Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, which is a plan for financial reorganization that the bankrupt company drafts alongside its creditors (represented by its creditors committee, a group that are designated as the good fiduciaries of all creditors, or all of its creditors) that everyone agrees will be the winning plan once the company enters bankruptcy. The prepackaged plan must also be voted on by shareholders of the soon-to- be bankrupt company before the company files its petition for bankruptcy.

    Note–the essential aspect of the prepackaged bankruptcy is that it has some efficiency benefits, but it does one thing that is often overlooked. It very often guarantees that the management that drove the company into bankruptcy will still be in control when the company comes out of bankruptcy.

    Now see how the analogy works in class actions, remembering that Google spent a lot of time learning how to twist the class action process on its head during the Google Books litigation. How would you blunt the class action from someone else’s sword into your shield? Get an agreement among the class action lawyers, potential class representatives (like a potential creditors’ committee), and file the action in your home town where people don’t think you’re evil.

    Then reach a quick class certification, a quick settlement agreement, and make sure you funnel money through the class action to all the groups that are likely to challenge you (through the cy pres process).

    The settlement, however, applies to all members of the class, most whom probably have no idea what is happening, that they have a claim, or that there’s anything they can do about it. In fact, only 578 class members opted out. In case anyone is interested, there is a list of their names at buzzclassaction.com (see Exhibit A).

    So see what may have happened: Google knows it is exposed to a class action by all users of Google Buzz. Somehow, class action lawyers find Google. Largely silent class representatives are identified and certified by the court. A settlement is reached–less than a year after filing, rather quickly in my curbstone point of view–and then large payments are made to “watchdogs” and to counsel. And perhaps most importantly–any member of the class who has not opted out of the settlement–and as we saw in Google Books, Google is all about opting out–is prohibited from pursuing a claim against Google. And what consideration was paid to the class members for giving up these valuable rights? Nothing. Zero. Zip.

    Presto chango–Google limits its liability to chump change, lawyers make money, cy pres recipients make money, the class gets zero.

    Google justice if I ever saw it.

    I don’t know that this is what happened, I’m just guessing. But it sure looks like it’s worth a second look. Whether or not it was premeditated, the result is the same.

    To be continued.

    Here are the cy pres recipients (Settlement at p. 6):

    ” (a) American Civil Liberties Union $700,000

    (b) Berkeley Center for Law & Technology $500,000

    (c) Berkeley Law School, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic $200,000

    (d) Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University $500,000

    (e) Brookings Institution $165,000

    (f) Carnegie Mellon, Cylab Usability, Privacy & Security Lab $350,000

    (g) Center for Democracy & Technology $500,000

    (h) Electronic Frontier Foundation $1,000,000

    (I) Indiana University, Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research $300,000

    (j) Stanford, Center for Internet & Society $500,000

    (k) YMCA of Greater Long Beach $300,000 [that well known hotbed of privacy watchdogs]

    (l) The Electronic Privacy Information Center $500,000

    (m) The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Santa Clara University $500,000

    (n) Youth Radio $50,000″

     

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

  69.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    2 AC trolls appear at almost the same time, with zero facts of their own, only attacks and "questions" about Mike and how he dares cover an ongoing story that interests him both personally and professionally.

    But don't dare call them paid shills!

     

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

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:54am

    Re:

    Maybe the government should set up an easier way for the public to license content from the creative class? You know, through the internet?

    I bet that would totally defeat piracy.

     

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

  71.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:56am

    Go figure

    You know what they say, figures don't lie but liars figure.

     

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

  72.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Holy shit - I have a career as a poet/musician? How did that happen without me noticing? All this time I thought my career was in marketing and design since that's what pays my bills - but apparently my hobby was my real career all along! Thanks for letting me know.

     

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

  73.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If that's the case, please explain three things to me:

    1) What has counterfeit goods got to do with streaming a video from Youtube?
    2) Why does the MPAA have to essentially fudge the numbers, in order to be correct about what it's doing?
    3) Cracked has a wonderful article about 5 logical fallacies that actually make things worse in rational discourse. Do you agree that the MPAA and those its ilk claim to represent are using them more than the anti-EPARASITES crowd?

     

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

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What do counterfeit smoke detectors have to do with copyright infringement? The answer is nothing.

     

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

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:11am

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

    1) both use intellectual property without persmission.

    2) The fudge the numbers in the same manner that copyright minimalists attempt to suggest that piracy does no harm, while ignoring that has happened to the recorded music industry since the Napster era. They want to score points.

    3) [citation needed], unable to comment on something I have not read.

     

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

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:13am

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

    You will not get any more bills through. The public will make sure of it.

    You are a woefully unsophisticated rube.

     

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

  77.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    one site paints the other side as incompetent, using tricks and "astroturfing" to create the appearance of support. Mike is using many of the same techniques right now, effectively turning his site into an anti-PROTECT-IP political site, rather than just a blog. He has attacked the bill supporters as a whole, individually, and as the groups they represent (including attacking the fire fighters who just want safe smoke detectors and equipment to do their jobs).

    Umm, how are those "the same tricks"? How is any of what you just described "astroturfing"? And why is it weird for an opinion blog that regularly discusses IP legislation to put lots of focus on a major piece of IP legislation that it opposes?

     

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

  78.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's the fourth or fifth time now that someone has linked that thing. It's definitely noteworthy; however, it has literally nothing to do with CreativeAmerica and how it's not actually a grassroots campaign, started byt he people, for the people.

    But hey, let's not get accuracy in the way of our attacks on Mike, eh?

     

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

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:15am

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

    Remember when in order to hear that hit new song one had to purchase the entire plastic shiny disc? And now one can just purchase the hit new song? Not Napster. Full albums to singles. You traded analog twenties for digital dollars.

     

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

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:16am

    Inflating the number of signatures on an online petition makes a mockery of the level of commitment it takes for a real person to sign an online petition.

     

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

  81.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:19am

    ©?

    Isn't it a bit ironic (and telling) that their logo uses the ©?

     

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

  82.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth

    They responded to my initial twit 2 hours ago:


    "@fightcopytrolls 100,000 letters come from website AND Change.org petition to multiple House/Senate members chn.ge/o1j8KO"

    in response to



    @MPAA @creativeamerica @demandprogress "4,173 Letters Sent So Far" the linked site says, not 100,000. You guys are desperate. #protectip

    21 hours ago via web

     

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

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:22am

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

    Says the IP maximist with half a brain.

     

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

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's the fourth or fifth time now that someone has linked that thing. It's definitely noteworthy; however, it has literally nothing to do with CreativeAmerica and how it's not actually a grassroots campaign, started byt he people, for the people.

    But hey, let's not get accuracy in the way of our attacks on Mike, eh?


    I actually see greater honesty in the fact that the studios and unions started this organization for their members and supporters than Google controlling these so-called advocacy groups from the shadows with its money. Google pays almost a third of EFF's budget, who do you think calls the shots on policy priorities at EFF?

     

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

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:35am

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

    ACtually, your career is making money in a copyright driven business environment, while crapping on the very system that pays your bills.

    Thanks for playing.

     

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

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:36am

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

    Apparently you are too ignorant and too young to remember 45's, or CD singles.

    Hey, don't let your ignorance slow you down!

     

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

  87.  
    icon
    ClarkeyBalboa (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean Hollywood inflates the numbers to suit its own interests?

    You ARE the Brute Squad!

     

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

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:38am

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

    Marcus, at this point Techdirt is coming very close to being a bit of astroturfing. Mike claims to have the artists in mind and even seems to suggest that he has some sort of sway in the music world, and yet few if any "artists" show up for his sites or his products.

    If Mike wandered around Washington in the last week doing the old "think about the artists" deal, pointing to his blog as some of indication of who he speaks for, it is effectively astroturfing. Does he speak for artists? Nope. Check out step two, and you will see all the artists crowding in to chat... all 3 of them.

     

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

  89.  
    icon
    Nuge (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Creative America's Letter Count

    Mike, i enjoy Techdirt and the good give and take. I know you want the facts on Creative America's count, and here they are.

    1. At creativeamerica.org we have generated, last I looked 5-10 minutes ago, 4195 email letters to the House.
    2. At our change.org page, where we generate email petitions/letters to Congress, we have, last I looked, 33,286 signators who each time they sign the petition, per the set up, generate 3 emails each, 1 to each of their Senators and Reps in Congress. That's how change.org works in this case. So that's 33,286x3 = 99,858.
    3. 4195 + 99,858 = 104,053

    I have the list right now in front of me that shows where each of the 100,000+ went to. I would be happy to sit down with you, and you alone, to walk through that list and have a third party verify its authenticity. Believe me, we don't have to make numbers up. People affected by content theft are speaking up and the number of emails will only climb.

    And by the way you culled out of the comments those that are negative. I even see negative comments on Techdirt. Here's one that captures well what others say, that is people who are hurt by content theft; this from a Whitney Boe (sorry I can't reproduce as well as you do above):


    whitney Boe

    24 days ago

    3 people like this reason

    Websites trafficking in stolen film and TV content get nearly 150 million visits every day, more than 50 billion visits per year. As an independent film producer I have seen my films that I put my own money into, uploaded to the internet for free viewing. Why people don't understand this is theft is beyond me. Do you steal from the grocery store? Do you walk into a Starbucks and just take what you want without paying? Do you go to the mall, try on the clothes you like and take them home? No, because you know it's theft and you know it's not only ethically wrong but it's illegal. Yes, the big guys like Disney and Warner Bros. are supporting this because they have the money to do it. Yes, they are protecting their "corporate interests" because it's legally their profit. This is not about "censuring the internet" this is about illegal access to someone else's products. MY products, MY income, MY ability to hire people to work on my films. And before you belligerently assume I'm some Hollywood millionaire, living in a mansion, who doesn't "work" for a living - like 99% of all people here in Los Angeles, I work my ass off full-time at a "real" job just like you, clip coupons and buy generic to make ends meet, have a mortgage and drive a 13 year old Honda. And I don't steal other people's property just because everyone else is doing it. So yes, read up on this issue and maybe you'll realize you are not entitled to free music, films, TV shows, or any other form of intellectual property

     

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

  90.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:41am

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

    But those were analog formats.

     

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

  91.  
    icon
    Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:43am

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

    He can use copyright, doesn't mean he has to support you in the process. Hollywood and copyright aren't mutually exclusive, despite your attempts to present them as such.

     

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

  92.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:44am

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

    CD singles?

    Only someone tirelessly supporting the recording industry would point out the existence of the CD single, otherwise known as "Paying $3-9 for an assortment of crap."

    This rundown of albums and their attendant singles breaks it down the CD single like this:

    LEADOFF SINGLE
    (Usually track 1, but occasionally track 3, 7 or 8.)
    1. Radio Edit
    2. Album Version
    (Optional)
    3. “Club Mix” with lazy 4/4 beat attached
    4. Demo version/non-album track that should have remained in the archives

    FOLLOWUP SINGLE
    (Usually track 2, 3 or 7. Very rarely 9. Never track 10 or beyond.)
    1. Radio Edit
    2. Album Version
    (Optional)
    3. “Club Mix” with lazy 4/4 beat/guest singer attached
    4. “Dub Mix” with terrible lyrics excised and lazy 4/4 beat attached
    5. Short throwaway track/truncated but lousy ironic/sincere cover

    This is why iTunes trumps even the "beloved" CD single.

     

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

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, because the court and Google were conspiring to take control over these organizations.

     

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

  94.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:49am

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

    He's been making this desperate attempt to discredit me for awhile now. He seems to think that the news media is a "copyright-driven industry" - which shows how little he understands it, considering it's actually fair-use-driven. He also doesn't actually have any clue what my job is or what it entails. Just ignore him - he's obsessed with me for some reason.

     

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

  95.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:51am

    Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    "People affected by content theft are speaking up and the number of emails will only climb."

    Yes, they will. More specifically, they'll climb at a rate in correlation to whatever "letter multiplier" you decide to tie to your signatures. My only question is: why the number 3? Wouldn't it have been far easier to just have it send out a MILLION letters for each signature, perhaps utilizing a spam list? Imagine how much fake support you'd have then!

     

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

  96.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:52am

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

    Your whole position is based on assumptions and guesswork. I do like how you've downgraded from saying Mike is doing "the very same" a couple comments ago, to now saying he's "coming very close to being a bit of" the same - I guess you are beginning to realize how flimsy your assertions are, and how little you have to back them up.

     

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

  97.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I actually see greater honesty in the fact that the studios and unions started this organization for their members and supporters than Google controlling these so-called advocacy groups from the shadows with its money."

    What Google and the courts did was publicly transparent. No one has been 'co-opted' here. The court forced Google to give some money to one or more organizations as a settlement measure because it was difficult to directly compensate the injured. There is no conspiracy theory going on here. You can take your Google tin foil hat back off.

    Now, the studios fabricating a grassroots campaign is by far more dishonest then what Google did by transparently following court orders.

     

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

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:55am

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

    Oh, and the link is here

    http://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2011/06/articles/court-issues-final-order-and-approves-awar ds-in-google-buzz-settlement/

    I figure I'll post it separately in case it gets held for moderation for some reason, plus some additional text here since that also seems to intermittently subvert the spam filter.

    No, it's not just IP maximists that have their comments held for moderation.

     

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

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:56am

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

    than *

     

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

  100.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:59am

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

    Most often turned out by freetard favorite Trent Reznor (who is off making a good living turning out copyright music for movies these days... I guess he learned!).

     

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

  101.  
    icon
    Nuge (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Dark: why 3? Because change.org creates 3 emails per each signed petition, telling the signator as much - that's why they are on change.org, to send petitions to Congress - to each of the signator's Senators (2) and Representative (1). Why 3: because this is a legislative issue on the table right now. The # of letters generated to our representatives in Congress is the important metric. If you have 3 representatives in Congress and only send 1 or 2 letters out, you are being less than effective and influencing less than you should.

     

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

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:00am

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

    Marcus, he is doing the same, in a different way. It's all the same thing, claiming to represent a group that you apparently don't represent.

    Can you name 10 musical artists that regularly contribute to Techdirt? You aren't one of them.

     

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

  103.  
    identicon
    Prisoner 201, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:01am

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

    Son, "Washington" was last weeks word. Get your act together or the payments stop.

     

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

  104.  
    identicon
    Prisoner 201, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:02am

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

    Point me to where Mike claims to represent even one artist.

     

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

  105.  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:09am

    Re: Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth

    Let's not leave out the possibility that they could also mail out the same form letters to deceased Members of Congress and raise their artificial numbers even more.

     

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

  106.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Does the EFF claim to be a grassroots campaign?

     

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

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    They're ORDERED to pay these groups, by a court, and that gets turned into "co-opted?"

    I fail to see how that works, since Google didn't choose these groups.


    And I stopped reading that awful rag a long time ago. Did you read the article? Is he seriously trying to say that google sued themselves to send money to these organizations? SERIOUSLY?

    I don't but it for a second.

     

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

  108.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:16am

    Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Whitney,

    I agree that piracy is both morally wrong and illegal and I'm sorry you are having a difficult time. But, this bill isn't going to solve any of those problems. In fact, it's only going to make you more dependent on the existing creative gate-keepers and make it more difficult for you to distribute your creative works in the future without making a deal with the devil. Your best bet is to embrace the new opportunities that this digital medium is opening up.

     

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

  109.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:16am

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

    I'm at a total loss as to what you are talking about. When did Mike claim to "represent" artists or to be some sort of grassroots artist spokesman? That's not the impression anyone else is getting. Maybe you project that onto Techdirt, but that's your problem.

     

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

  110.  
    icon
    ClarkeyBalboa (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Note how at the end the author says "I don’t know that this is what happened, I’m just guessing"

     

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

  111.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Marcus, it's on par with Mike starting an "artists" protest letter

    See... that's kinda the difference between a grass roots movement and astroturfing. Mike says "Hey, we don't like this. Want to join with us and say you don't like it too?". Mike didn't hide that he was involved. His intended audience is SPECIFICALLY artists, with the intent of illustrating how at least some people who make their living in this fashion don't agree with the bill.

    and getting it signed by a handful of people that most of us don't know

    So what? Most people have never heard of most artists. Does their lack of public exposure make their opinion less valuable? I know the labels think obscurity is worse than death, but most of the rest of us are just fine with it.

    and claiming to represent the artists.

    Mike, when did you become an agent? But seriously, I've never heard or read Mike say "My voice is the opinion of all artists... it's just they can't say it because the labels would emasculate them and steal their residuals." Care to cite?

    As the other coward said, one site paints the other side as incompetent, using tricks and "astroturfing" to create the appearance of support.

    To paraphrase an earlier post: Astroturfing. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    To the best of my knowledge, Mike has paid absolutely no one to say they don't like eParasite. Can the same be said about the labels? Has Mike made an effort to hide his affiliation with anti-eParasite groups, forums or lobbying groups? Can the same be said for the labels?

    Mike is using many of the same techniques right now, effectively turning his site into an anti-PROTECT-IP political site, rather than just a blog.

    "Mike runs an anti-protectionist political blog." There. FTFY. It didn’t magically turn in to one. It’s been pretty much against since day one. In pretty much any venue he runs in to. The difference is (I believe), he used to think he could help change minds purely through dialogue, logic and reason. The response from industry was demagoguery and propaganda. Hard to have a meaningful discussion when the other side just puts their fingers in their ears and screams “la la la la, I CAN’T HEAR YOU FREETARDS!”.

    He has attacked the bill supporters as a whole, individually, and as the groups they represent (including attacking the fire fighters who just want safe smoke detectors and equipment to do their jobs).

    Please define the word 'attack' because I don't think it means what you think it means. Pointing out the disingenuousness or the irrelevance of a supporter is not an attack. Calling someone names like 'freetard' is. Accusing someone of spreading FUD without citing specific instances of incorrect, inaccurate, or wrong information is.

    Just remember that when you think to attack the other side, because your fearless leader is doing the very same. You just don't notice it because you agree with him.

    Seriously, I had a gut check moment when I read your response. Nearly everyone that reads this cite CARES about some aspect of intellectual property. As a result, we tend to not be objective in this discussion. But, and this is the crux of things, most of us strongly believe that any business model that fails to adapt is doomed. Most of us believe that we’ve seen this before in history, and EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME the alarmists proved to be wrong. Most of us believe the content producing sector (music, movies, software) are attempting to maintain a legacy model while two enormous paradigms explode under their feet: 1. Infinite products with exceedingly low cost business models, 2. Increasingly inexpensive technical bars to produce content. Both of these should operate to significantly reduce the COGS, which in turn will tend to reduce the cost of the final product. It hasn’t. I could go on… but I think most people reading this get the idea.

    I think we’ve got some pretty good reasons to not agree with the backers of eParasite. I think, if needed, we can provide a lot of citations why. I also think that most of us don’t blindly follow our ‘fearless leader’. FWIW: that’s the real difference between a real grass roots movement and astroturfing: WE ARE ENGAGED, INTERESTED AND CARE. We didn’t have to be told. We came to where the conversation was.

     

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

  112.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:35am

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

    Marcus, would you care to tell us how many articles in the news industry have copyright notices on them? Or how the wire services and new sharing services work by paying for the use of copyrighted material?

    Are you suggesting it is all copyfraud?

    You make your living off of a copyright supported industry. Yet you shit all over it. Why?

     

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

  113.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:39am

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

    Marcus, that's why I asked Mike to disclose what he has been doing in Washington, what group or groups he has been representing, working with, supporting, or being paid to speak for, etc.

    He declined, saying only he was doing it as Floor 64. Yet we all know he isn't getting the ear of multiple house members if he is just some random guy from off the street, not even in their district, talking about whatever. So did he go as part of and EFF group, example? Is EFF paying his way, paying his hotel, supporting him, providing him support services? Is he speaking for them?

    His seeming lack of desire to talk about what he has been doing in Washington makes it look like he has something to hide. After all, it's the same standard he would hold the other side to. I makes me think he may be telling people that he represents a music and artist community, which so far doesn't seem to be true.

     

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

  114.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:43am

    Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    In response to the Whitney Boe comment: They MAY be 'Your' Products (and these days with the copyright/trademark/patent thicket many 'original' ideas may not be yours for long), and 'your' ability to hire people to work on your films, but it is certainly NOT 'YOUR' Income.

    Dug-in Content creators need to pull their head out of the sand and stop equating a download to a lost sale. As an independent film producer stopping piracy will only decrease sales. Its been shown in study after study here on techdirt that obscurity is worse than piracy.

    Just because someone downloads the music doesn't mean they would also deem it worth the $5 from the Walmart overstock bin.

    !! WARNING the following may contain sarcasm and is not suitable for certain readers. Reader's discretion is advised !!
    But wait there's good news! YOU can stop piracy. YOU can turn your movie back into a SCARE good! and its Simple and Cheap! Unplug all your studio computers from the internet. Now Burn 1 copy of your movie to DVD drive to a theater. Get the TSA to search every grandmother coming into the theater for a camera/cellphone, once its been cleared, place the DVD in the projector yourself, show the film, wait in the projection booth, then take the DVD when you leave. Repeat thousands of times. IT has to work! there is zero chance of piracy!
    /Sarc

     

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

  115.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:49am

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

    Wow - that's a whole lot of assumptions you are making... Not particularly convincing, I'm afraid.

     

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

  116.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    But isn't the people that are important? Letters are inanimate objects. People are the ones who will be effected by the legislation. They are the ones who should be at the forefront to back any campaign.

    As Dark Helmet has said, the number of letters can be manipulated into whatever you want it to be. All you have to do is add a few more people to the recipient list.

    However, the number of signatories has real meaning and value. That shows how many people actually support your position.

     

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

  117.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:57am

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

    I really don't have time to educate you on the intricacies of news reporting or the industry's economics. Yes, copyright plays a certain role - though it's not a central one or, in my opinion, a necessary one. If copyright were abolished tomorrow, most news organizations wouldn't even stumble - if the exceptions to copyright were abolished tomorrow, most news organizations would collapse.

    Wire services rely on it the most - they are also a woefully obsolete business model struggling to retain relevance in a world where people have far more sources of news than their local paper. I shed no tears for them.

    I suggest you give this up. But if you want to keep making wildly inaccurate assertions based on what is apparently a cursory knowledge of the news industry, that's your prerogative I guess.

     

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

  118.  
    icon
    Mr. LemurBoy (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re:

    Oh they can be real replies. I have a friend in a band, and the other night he started asking me how I could possibly defend piracy because didn't I want my favorite artists to keep making money?

    Besides putting words in my mouth (claiming that stating that piracy is inevitable and people should stop suing over it means that I encourage piracy) when I asked him if an illegal download is stealing, his answer was an unequivocal yes. When I asked him why copyright should be so long, and did he really think that only his children's children should be able to use his work without permission, he again stated yes, and that no one else should be able to use it. When I said that copyright shouldn't be a welfare system, he asked why not and said he was perfectly fine with it being that way, and that maybe the public domain was given too much credit and perhaps we've gotten to a point where there shouldn't be a public domain anymore because why should anyone else get to profit off his labor?

    No, he wasn't trolling. Yes, he really believes that. No, I don't know how to argue with someone who has a viewpoint that strong in that direction.

     

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

  119.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 12:54pm

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

    I don't find you very convincing either. I do know that you know how to keep asking irrelevant questions and how to split hairs as to avoid the topic at hand.

     

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

  120.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm confused about this list. Are you arguing that because a court ordered Google to give these organizations money, they're all suspect and pro-Google.

    I mean, wtf. EPIC is on that list, and they're one of the most anti-Google operations around.

    I'm confused as to how you think that list proves your point. It seems to undermine it. Do we no longer trust EPIC's regular slams of Google now?

     

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

  121.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:00pm

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

    Ah yes - asking you when Mike said the things you are claiming he said is TOTALLY irrelevant.

     

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

  122.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Google pays almost a third of EFF's budget, who do you think calls the shots on policy priorities at EFF?

    Have you actually paid attention to what EFF does? And have you not seen how... um... upset EFF was over Google swiping Fred? To put it mildly, EFF is not an operation that is pro-Google these days. Pretending that EFF takes orders from Google shows a MASSIVE ignorance of the EFF. Or a paid liar. Take your pick.

     

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

  123.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Epic Fail ;)

     

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

  124.  
    identicon
    balaknair, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Grassroots

    "You had to admire the way perfectly innocent words were mugged, ravished, stripped of all true meaning and decency and then sent to walk the gutter for Reacher Gilt, although ‘synergistically’ had probably been a whore from
    the start."

    From 'Going Postal' by Terry Pratchett.

     

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

  125.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:38pm

    Re:

    Vinyl rocks. But it's difficult to maintain and, shall we say, less portable than MP3s.

    This would lead into my "Good Enough" lecture if I felt up to writing it again, but let's just say that most people find CDs and MP3s to be "good enough" quality for their everyday needs, and leave it at that. (Phillips cassettes were immensely popular for several decades despite their inferior quality.)

    CDs replaced vinyl not because of their superior quality, but because they're much more convenient, portable, and easier to maintain, and they're recordable (that took some time but it was icing on the cake). So trying to engage the audiophile nature of the masses is useless, because they haven't got one.

     

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

  126.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Grassroots

    "Synergy".

     

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

  127.  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth

    Multiple letters from one person? Sounds like double, nay triple dipping, which we know they like!

     

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

  128.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:47pm

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

    Marcus, he is doing the same, in a different way. It's all the same thing, claiming to represent a group that you apparently don't represent.

    I have never suggested I represented artists. I went to DC representing... Floor64. And that's it. In every meeting I stated that I was there on behalf of Floor64, and I was.

    I do love the conspiracy theories though. Keep it up.

     

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

  129.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Nuge, as Dark Helmet pointed out (and you ignored) the number of actual letters sent is *meaningless*, because you get to choose the multiplier. Claiming 100,000 letters sent is misrepresenting reality, because you know damn well that people will interpret that as the number of *people* who signed.

    And, I mean if you're going to count that way, then I guess that means we multiply Demand Progress's letter count by 3 as well. Showing that a hell of a lot more people seem to support the other side.

    So in the end, it seems like the 100,000 claim is about as intellectually honest as the "grassroots" claim.

     

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

  130.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:52pm

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

    Even in on-line multi-player team games we get "griefers" -- people whose only purpose is to disrupt the game, even (and especially) for their own team. Aside from being able to piss people off without serious consequence, most of us cannot fathom their purpose.

    I simply assume that these clowns are the blog equivalent of griefers. Trolls who troll for the sake of trolling. Fortunately, unlike the games, they can't really disrupt the blog since they don't actually interfere with its performance. Griefers make the game unplayable; trolls are merely annoying. So they don't have to be kick-banned, they can be safely ignored.

     

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

  131.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Marcus, it's on par with Mike starting an "artists" protest letter, and getting it signed by a handful of people that most of us don't know, and claiming to represent the artists.

    Except, um, I had nothing to do with that. I wrote about it on Techdirt when it was announced, but it was organized by Fight for the Future.

    Seriously, when all you believe is conspiracies that you make up in your brain, you're going to end up looking foolish most of the time.

     

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

  132.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:55pm

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

    Ignore him, he's just trying to use the False Dilemma to try to paint you as a hypocrite. Same as most of the other trolls here.

     

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

  133.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 1:59pm

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

    Mike claims to have the artists in mind and even seems to suggest that he has some sort of sway in the music world

    hahaha, no, Masnick most certainly does not have any sway in the music world, trust me. ha, the mere notion of such a thing is the funniest thing I've heard today...

     

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

  134.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:05pm

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

    Can't be a theory. A theory has facts and research to back it up. Until that happens it is, at best, conjecture.

    In this case I think "conjecture" is dignifying his claims with the suggestion of actual thought process. To me it looks more like a nervous reflex.

    Even there I'm assuming multi-cellular processes to start with, but he has to reach the keyboard somehow.

     

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

  135.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:07pm

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

    Try getting out more.

     

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

  136.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:11pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't know about water in the basement, but it's obvious his pilot light is out.

     

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

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    So in the end, it seems like the 100,000 claim is about as intellectually honest as the "grassroots" claim.

    So in the end, your omitting the fact that the motion picture industry unions(who represent several hundred thousand workers) were among the founders and sit on the Creative America executive committee was intellectually honest?

     

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

  138.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:14pm

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

    hahaha, no, Masnick most certainly does not have any sway in the music world, trust me. ha, the mere notion of such a thing is the funniest thing I've heard today...

    And yet... In the last few years I've been asked to speak at or keynote nearly a dozen music industry events. And just an hour ago I was on the phone getting invited to give yet another talk in front of one of the largest music industry events.

    I agree that it's silly that I might have any "sway" at all. What I talk about is common sense and shouldn't require me to say anything at all. But it seems that some people appreciate it. You -- obviously -- do not. But, it certainly appears that some in the industry at least appreciate what I have to say, and given how frequently I've been getting calls from musicians and labels... well, some of them appreciate it as well. Not everyone, certainly. And I don't think, nor have I ever suggested I speak for artists. But some of the ideas I present seem to attract attention, and lots of folks seem happy to hear what I have to say.

     

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

  139.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:22pm

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

    "Marcus, it's on par with Mike starting an "artists" protest letter, and getting it signed by a handful of people that most of us don't know, and claiming to represent the artists."

    Except, um, I had nothing to do with that. I wrote about it on Techdirt when it was announced, but it was organized by Fight for the Future.

    Seriously, when all you believe is conspiracies that you make up in your brain, you're going to end up looking foolish most of the time.


    It was the so-called "tech entrepreneur" letter that Masnick orchestrated. You know the one signed by people, among whom, have had their own history of infringing.

     

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

  140.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:32pm

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

    "The fudge the numbers in the same manner that copyright minimalists attempt to suggest that piracy does no harm..."

    It would be far more accurate to say that copyright minimalists ask repeatedly for independent, verifiable evidence that piracy does actual harm, or net harm (i.e. the bad outweighs the good). This has simply not been provided. In fact the "evidence" provided for the harm caused by piracy is another example of fudged numbers from the same companies behind this astroturfing group.

    "...while ignoring that has happened to the recorded music industry since the Napster era."

    It's ironic that you'd accuse copyright minimalists of this, since it's the copyright maximalists who completely ignore the many other changes in the music industries since then, like the explosion in popularity of digital singles, the rise in other forms of competing entertainment, and anti-fan lawsuit crusades, not to mention more recent events like that little economic problem we've all been having lately.

     

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

  141.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:33pm

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

    "Google pays almost a third of EFF's budget, who do you think calls the shots on policy priorities at EFF?"

    Have you actually paid attention to what EFF does? And have you not seen how... um... upset EFF was over Google swiping Fred? To put it mildly, EFF is not an operation that is pro-Google these days. Pretending that EFF takes orders from Google shows a MASSIVE ignorance of the EFF. Or a paid liar. Take your pick.

    Oh please Masnick. With the ceaseless allegations on Techdirt that politicians are corrupted by corporate contributions in the tens of thousand dollar range, you have the temerity to suggest that after EFF gets $1 million from Google, that EFF isn't Google's bitch. That laughable even for a dope like you. One million dollars. Almost a third of EFF's annual budget. And CDT gets a half-million. You're out of your fucking mind FUDboy. Only in your strange, twisted world can a corporation buy a politician for 10 grand and a "advocacy group" is totally unaffected (or even hostile?) after getting $1 million from Google. You are truly a buffoon.

     

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

  142.  
    icon
    BeeAitch (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Desperation looks good on you! :)

     

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

  143.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ask him how he feels about Metallica taking songs from other artists. Then ask him how it felt to learn the chords of Slash, Axl Rose, or any other Metal head.

    What you're trying to communicate is that the simple things he's doing is copyright infringement. If he can't pick up a guitar, learn from the people that came before, then learn how to make money from their examples, then he's a dirty thief. That's how the music industry has contempt for others.

     

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

  144.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:44pm

    Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    1. At creativeamerica.org we have generated, last I looked 5-10 minutes ago, 4195 email letters to the House.
    2. At our change.org page, where we generate email petitions/letters to Congress, we have, last I looked, 33,286

    So in fact Mike's figures were pretty accurate as well as where the 100,000 total came from. Slightly curious as to why you'd point out the same thing so stridently except to try and suggest some sort of dishonesty.

    However, like others replying, I would suggest that the actual number of supporters is rather more relevant than the number of letters sent. After all, the average spammer has probably sent congressmen more than 100,000 "letters" suggesting how great viagra is and it doesn't mean there's a national movement supporting the increase in stiffys.
    I'm willing to be convinced, but hiding behind tenuous numbers weakens your position with anyone that cares to look for more than a second rather than portraying strength in numbers. If you think you have the weight of public opion on your side then show it honestly and show the reasoned arguments why.

    While we're on the subject of reasoned arguments:
    Why people don't understand this is theft is beyond me. Do you steal from the grocery store? Do you walk into a Starbucks and just take what you want without paying? Do you go to the mall, try on the clothes you like and take them home? No, because you know it's theft and you know it's not only ethically wrong but it's illegal.

    This is not one and holding it up as an example of support also tends to undermine your position. It suggests to me someone who is hurt and wanting to punish and there's a reason that sane justice systems don't let victims decide on the punishment to be enacted. I can understand their position and frustration since it probably is pretty tough to be an independant film maker in the current locked down studio dominated evvironment. However the old "file sharing is theft" thing is getting pretty tired and every time I see it my natural inclination is to discount the opinion of anyone who says it as someone who has bought the soundbites rather than thinking it through for themselves.

    I think there's a debate to be had about file sharing and how right or wrong it is but however wrong file sharing may or may not be, comparing it to taking physical goods is obviously wildly innacurate and suggests the rest of the person's opionion is likely to be equally pejoratively coloured. I'm willing to be convinced, but I have yet to see anyone on that side if the "debate" coming up with a much more reasoned argument. And I don't buy it, any more than I buy the "everything should be free" argument on the extreme of the other side (though at least that is the extreme on that side rather than the entire argument).

    So, you know, feel free to come back with your best arguments and reasoning. I'd love hear it and I'm pretty sure a lot of other people here would too.

     

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

  145.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Has it not been shown that the heads of unions don't necessarily represent the people within the union quite accurately?

     

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

  146.  
    icon
    surfer (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 3:47pm

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

    so, you actually KNOW how much it takes for a corporation to buy a politician?

     

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

  147.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 4:51pm

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

    It was the so-called "tech entrepreneur" letter that Masnick orchestrated.

    That's clearly not what he's talking about. He's claiming that it was the "artist" protest letter, which is entirely different.

     

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

  148.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 4:56pm

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

    Oh please Masnick. With the ceaseless allegations on Techdirt that politicians are corrupted by corporate contributions in the tens of thousand dollar range, you have the temerity to suggest that after EFF gets $1 million from Google, that EFF isn't Google's bitch

    Again, not sure how many times this has to be explained: that was via *court order*. And why did you ignore the stuff about EPIC? EPIC received $500k and hits back at Google ALL the time.

    So why aren't you claiming EPIC is Google's bitch?

    That laughable even for a dope like you.

    Ah. Yeah. That's convincing.

    One million dollars. Almost a third of EFF's annual budget. And CDT gets a half-million. You're out of your fucking mind FUDboy.

    One of us is being reasonable and speaking from a position of knowledge. One of us is not. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which one is which.

    Only in your strange, twisted world can a corporation buy a politician for 10 grand and a "advocacy group" is totally unaffected (or even hostile?) after getting $1 million from Google. You are truly a buffoon.

    So, let's clarify: EPIC is Google's bitch, right?

    And, again, if you actually knew anything about how EFF functions and what they work on, you'd know that your claims are completely false. But it's good to see you building up the conspiracy theories. I think, perhaps, it might be time for you to take a little break and learn how to comprehend reality outside of the Beltway.

     

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

  149.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 5:00pm

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

    Oh, I know I stand know chance of getting anything through his thick skull. I guess I respond more for the edification of others, and for my own thought process, because it is an interesting topic: what role does copyright really play for newspapers?

    Newspapers, like movie studios, have had their monopolies busted up by the digital revolution - but for very different reasons. The key is that newspapers never relied on the revenue from physical goods. Newsstand and subscription revenues have been a loss-leader for 200 years - the money was in advertising. What newspapers lost was the geographical monopolies they enjoyed, which gave them almost totally captive audiences that advertisers were willing to pay a LOT of money for. Only a handful of newspaper people really seem to complain about "piracy" in the form of blogs that quote their content and such - the majority are just struggling to find ways to retain huge audiences and advertiser dollars in the online world, where both readers and advertisers have so many choices. It really has nothing to do with copyright. The solution lies in brand-building, innovative approaches to journalism AND advertising, and of course our old friend CwF+RtB (more on how that works for newspapers here)

    Movie studios, on the other hand, have been relying on sales of physical goods ever since the courts saved them by letting the VCR survive. Now the physical goods are unnecessary - so the truth is, their problem has nothing to do with copyright either. Their real problem is new technology that has made their primary revenue generator totally obsolete - piracy is just the manifestation of that because they refuse to embrace the new technology themselves. It's not "creators vs. consumers" - it's "dvd sellers vs. the future", and it's a futile battle.

     

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

  150.  
    icon
    Nuge (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 5:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Mike, I don't know how Demand Progress calculates its count. Do you? Creative America has been completely transparent, and we don't count letters from senders whose location info is garbled or missing or out of the US.

    In a legislative matter, every individual in the US has 3 represenatives - 2 Senate and 1 House. If you care about an issue, you send to all 3. Thus, letter count is critical. That's what our elected representatives look to when taking the pulse of their electorate. To each of the 3 representatives, 1 letter = 1 person. You want to paint this as an attempt to mislead, but the metric we wanted to communicate was # of letters, and we did.

     

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

  151.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 5:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    In a legislative matter, every individual in the US has 3 represenatives - 2 Senate and 1 House. If you care about an issue, you send to all 3. Thus, letter count is critical. That's what our elected representatives look to when taking the pulse of their electorate. To each of the 3 representatives, 1 letter = 1 person. You want to paint this as an attempt to mislead, but the metric we wanted to communicate was # of letters, and we did.

    The problem is that # of letters sent is meaningless, because it's a metric *entirely in your control* as you describe it. Thus, it is not a show of support. It's a show of the strength of your ability to spam. That's the point everyone here is trying to make to you.

    That's why it's misleading.

     

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

  152.  
    icon
    Nuge (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 5:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Mike, let's put this in terms of a visit to a town hall. If I, Nuge, go to a town hall of each of my Senators and my Representative and express my support for a particular view, that is not meaningless. That is exercising my First Amendment rights, among others. And, on the other side, each of my representatives knows where I stand and factors that into their thinking on how to vote. Net-net, there is communication on an issue with three of my represenatives who most assuredly are three independent actors. So my communication with all three is not only an exercise of my First Amendment rights, not only an exercise of democratic principles, but also necessary because I have 3 actors to influence. So if individual through Creative America attends 3 town halls or sends 3 emails, that total count is very important in determining influence. This is what you are missing. It's not about #s of senders, it's about individuals communicating their point of view to their multiple representatives.

     

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

  153.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 5:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    If I, Nuge, go to a town hall of each of my Senators and my Representative and express my support for a particular view, that is not meaningless. That is exercising my First Amendment rights, among others. And, on the other side, each of my representatives knows where I stand and factors that into their thinking on how to vote. Net-net, there is communication on an issue with three of my represenatives who most assuredly are three independent actors. So my communication with all three is not only an exercise of my First Amendment rights, not only an exercise of democratic principles, but also necessary because I have 3 actors to influence.

    ...and the news would report that as "Local Man Supports Cause" - not as "Three Conversations Were Had In Support Of Cause"

     

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

  154.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 5:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Mike, let's put this in terms of a visit to a town hall. If I, Nuge, go to a town hall of each of my Senators and my Representative and express my support for a particular view, that is not meaningless. That is exercising my First Amendment rights, among others. And, on the other side, each of my representatives knows where I stand and factors that into their thinking on how to vote.

    Awesome. So, by this measure, when we had 160 of the top entrepreneurs in the country send letters to every member of Congress about how PROTECT IP would stifle their ability to create jobs, each combination was a separate letter. So we should now be claiming that 85,600 (160 * 535) letters were sent from entrepreneurs to Congress about how PROTECT IP will kill jobs and innovation.

    Hell, now I sorta feel like sending it to the President, the VP and some others in the administration too, so we can get it up to 100,000.

     

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

  155.  
    icon
    Nuge (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    But the Senate and House offices I seek to influence would report that as 3 separate contacts. And, after all, each office either has to record a contact or there is zero contact. You're missing the point. The point is influence, the end destination, not the origination point.

    You'd like to report a Grand Slam in baseball as a home run, ignoring the 3 other runs brought in. OK. You're technically right, but you fail to see total impact on the game in doing so.

     

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

  156.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    If I, Nuge, go to a town hall of each of my Senators and my Representative and express my support for a particular view, that is not meaningless

    Oh, and while we're at it... since "Creative"America seems so afraid of its members own "creativity" that it refuses to let them edit the text of the letter, your analogy is wrong.

    It's more like if you sat there with a pre-recorded tape message and blared it out to the 3 reps as they passed by.

    Not quite the same.

    Speaking of which: what *are* you afraid of? Why won't you let your members actually be creative. Both Demand Progress and the EFF have letter writing systems agaisnt PIPA, and both of them let people write what they want.

    I always find it hilarious that the "creative" community always says you have to send exactly what's in the script. Kinda proves the point that you're not really about the creative folks, doesn't it?

     

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

  157.  
    icon
    Nuge (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    The point you are missing is that we are talking constituent letters. That is what we are generating. Letters from voters. Voters agitated. And so you must take into account an individual's letters to each of his or her 3 representatives. So factor that in when coming to your count. And be transparent.

     

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

  158.  
    icon
    Nuge (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Not really, Mike. We find people in our community are very busy. So if they don't agree, they don't have to send the letter. Simple. But frankly, we are not hearing people care about the edit function. They are grateful there's a place finally where they can send their message to Washington and express their voice. Check it out. You'll see.

     

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

  159.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:24pm

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

    "It was the so-called "tech entrepreneur" letter that Masnick orchestrated."

    That's clearly not what he's talking about. He's claiming that it was the "artist" protest letter, which is entirely different.

    No shit, Einstein.

     

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

  160.  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:32pm

    every person

    Every single person who doesn't sign disney's petition is a lost sale (not sure how but I'll get the lawyers right on it) and should give Disney $1250.00 for each petition they didn't sign...................................

     

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

  161.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    "Has it not been shown that the heads of unions don't necessarily represent the people within the union quite accurately?"

    As with politicians, unions have elections. I guess that if the leaders aren't representing their constituents, then they get voted out. That fact is something you should consider when you size up the array of co-sponsors to these bills vis-a-vis the purported "public outcry".

    How about a little bet Jay? I'll put the over/under in the Senate at 80 and 300 in the House and take the over on both. You in? And I'll also bet that these bills are a huge non-issue in the 2012 election cycle.

     

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

  162.  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:37pm

    I know how the letter content is wrong

    Wanna know the secret?

    Ever noticed how every single damn movie sequel is just rehashing the same tired old crap over and over?

    Thats how creative america's system works.
    You "send" (or have sent without your knowledge) a letter.
    They then count that letter as the original, the sequel, another sequel, a special edition version, a reboot, a gritty reboot, a grittier reboot, a special edition uncut version of the letter, a version of the letter with a directors commentary and hey presto! 4000 letters becomes 100,000

    See Mike? they did absolutely nothing wrong...just standard hollywood accounting.

     

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

  163.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    The problem is that # of letters sent is meaningless, because it's a metric *entirely in your control* as you describe it. Thus, it is not a show of support. It's a show of the strength of your ability to spam. That's the point everyone here is trying to make to you.

    That's why it's misleading.


    It's also misleading to completely ignore the fact that the entertainment unions are co-founders of Creative America and comprise half of the Executive Committee. At least his claim is factually correct. Yours: "Dig a little, and you'll find that CreativeAmerica was actually set up by Disney, Warnber Bros., NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox and Sony Pictures. " is a half-truth at best.

     

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

  164.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 7:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    But they don't need you to speak for them. They can already write their own letters and do it the way they want. They only service you are offering, if you can call it a service, is the ability to be added to a statistic that will be touted by an astroturf group.

    That is not worth while and is why you are having to tout letters written rather than signatures gathered.

     

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

  165.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 7:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    No you don't need to take the letters sent into account. The only meaningful statistic is the number of signatories you have in your support. Why you choose not to use that is obvious, they number is far lower than groups opposed to SOPA.

     

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

  166.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 8:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    I am pro-union. Unions need to be smart and do whats best for their members. Propping up dying business models and their incumbents is not smart. Seeing the internet as a incredible advance in the ability to distribute content to the 7 billion people who live on earth is smart. Finding a way to make money doing that will make you rich. Be smart and get rich.

     

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

  167.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Rubberpants, I enjoy your comments but saying "piracy is morally wrong" is a fallacy that has been argued here many times, it illegal right now, but laws will always reflect what people are. There is no need to solve "the difficult times artists are having today". It is painful right now for but as you say the current environment makes it "more difficult for you to distribute your creative works in the future without making a deal with the devil". Artists (and the content industry) will only gain because of the internet. The incumbent companies that control it right now might no,t but that is their own fault because they don't adapt. The truth is the internet expands distribution to 7 billion people. Don't apologize, there are/will soon be companies who find a way to make money and they will need artists. (I know this is what you are saying but just had a problem with the "morally wrong" part you said about sharing).

     

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

  168.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    "That fact is something you should consider when you size up the array of co-sponsors to these bills vis-a-vis the purported "public outcry"."

    I wouldn't trust a union that decides before hand, which has happened in the past.

    "How about a little bet Jay? "

    Why? I have no interest in betting on legislation aimed at breaking the internet.

     

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

  169.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 9:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    So first IP maximists interpret the 100,000 letters sent to mean that 100,000 different people sent those letters and arguing that they could have come from multiple different websites. Then, when that gets proven wrong, IP maximists continue to defend what was done here claiming that nothing was misleading. Heck, even the IP maximists themselves were mislead when they tried to defend the 100,000 person support by claiming that those signatures could have come from a combination of various different websites. For them to now back out of that and claim that no one is being misleading is self contradictory.

     

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

  170.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    misled *

     

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

  171.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

     

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

  172.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 10:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    "Creative America has been completely transparent"

    Sure they have been, that's why even IP maximists were misled.

     

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

  173.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 11:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    Not really, Mike. We find people in our community are very busy. So if they don't agree, they don't have to send the letter. Simple.

    That makes no sense. EFF & Demand Progress give suggested language -- so that the people who are "very busy" can still send as is. But not even having the option of editing raises a lot of questions -- especially about a group that claims it's made up of "creative" people.

    Along those lines: why do you keep calling yourself a grassroots organization, when you're clearly not?

     

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

  174.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 3rd, 2011 @ 12:12am

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

    "He declined, saying only he was doing it as Floor 64. "

    So... because he refused to give specific details to an anonymous idiot with a long history of launching baseless attacks on him on his own forum, you assume that his citation of only his business name is some kind of conspiracy?

    I'll say again: meds. On them or off them, whatever you're doing now, do the opposite. Your current situation clearly isn't working.

     

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

  175.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Nov 3rd, 2011 @ 12:18am

    Re: Re:

    "trying to engage the audiophile nature of the masses is useless, because they haven't got one"

    Despite the constant AC claims of the opposite, I'm not a thief. However, I may steal this glorious line. I thought it would be polite to warn you :)

     

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

  176.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 3rd, 2011 @ 12:46am

    Union Support for PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE/Creative America ?

    I am a member of IATSE, the Entertainment Union mentioned. While our union leaders have seen fit to endorse Creative America and it's agenda, in fact no general vote of the membership, no referendum, no general consensus of the rank and file was ever had. We were not asked if we wanted to support this.

    We have received much propaganda supporting PROTECT IP, and recently CreativeAmerica. In the beginning it usually read like it came straight off the MPAA PR Desk, but recently our union leaders have been personalizing it with their own touches. Despite the one sided propaganda blitz, most of IATSE's members are not even aware of the issue. When I talk to my fellow filmworkers and outline both sides of the debate on "PROTECT IP" they almost invariably come out against it and express dismay that the union is supporting it.

    "As with politicians, unions have elections. I guess that if the leaders aren't representing their constituents, then they get voted out."

    Democracy within the unions works about as well as it does on the national level....

    Seriously though, I have only become aware of this issue in the last few months. It wasn't to my recollection an issue in the last round of elections. But you can bet it will influence my vote in the next round of union elections. Still, just like in national politics, I may not have many real choices.

    "I am pro-union. Unions need to be smart and do whats best for their members. Propping up dying business models and their incumbents is not smart."

    Amen to that. I would add: Screwing everyone in a desperate hope to help a small minority is not ethical, and if you are not ethical people will mostly hate you.

    On this issue, do not assume the union leadership represents the opinions of the majority of union members.

     

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

  177.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 3rd, 2011 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I got an idea then. I'm going to send 100k e-mails against the SOPA thing and have all the current ~200k from Demand and other places that are sending those do the same. 200k times 100k. That'd be astonishing 20 billion e-mails! Surely we'll wind and the bill won't be passed because of that.

    Sounds idiotic? That's MAFIAA accounting taken up a notch ;)

     

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

  178.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 3rd, 2011 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Creative America's Letter Count

    "The point is influence"

    You shouldn't be proud of that word.

     

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

  179.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 3rd, 2011 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth

     

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

  180.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 8:05am

    Re:

    We need a "stupid" button. I don't want to hide trolls like this, but it would be nice if we could have a "DUH" put on these posts as a warning to the reader. Vote this comment insightful if you agree, maybe Mike will take note. :-)

     

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


Add Your Comment

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

Close

Email This