Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet
from the priorities,-people dept
As pointed out by Harold Feld, it seems pretty messed up that our news media is going absolutely nuts over the story of the potential “Bieber baby,” but has all but ignored the story of how the lack of clarity in the proposed SOPA law might mean Justin Bieber would go to jail for his performances of other people’s works on YouTube — something Bieber himself has spoken out against. Let’s take a look. A basic Google News search on “bieber baby” turns up… 3,770 news stories:
Filed Under: e-parasite, journalism, justin bieber, priorities, protect ip, sopa
Comments on “Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet”
Mike, don’t blog about this because it’s not important. That’s why the mainstream press has more important things to discuss.
Re: Re:
Like rumored babies of pop star, other celebrate gossip, and and whatever the zoo animal of the week is.
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly!! See, somebody gets it!
Which story is actually more important? The one in which the government makes massive regulatory changes to the internet that will create felons out of ordinary people? Or the story about a baby that a pop star may or may not have fathered?
If your worst-case-scenario-parade-of-horribles was actually likely to happen, people would care more. But since it’s a bunch of baseless FUD, people aren’t paying attention. Even with all your screaming you couldn’t get more than 15 hits. Sounds about exactly right to me, Mike. You lose again.
Re: Re:
No, the general population doesn’t care because its not about which celebrity is dating whom or who is having what baby next. They assume the bad things that come along will be taken care of by someone else so they shouldn’t have to care.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s amazing how many protesters protest this whole Michael Jackson fiasco, just because he’s a famous celebrity. Had it been over an average Joe Blow, few would pay much attention.
Re: Re:
Yup. And people care a lot more about Hillary Clinton’s view on this than they would a teenager’s.
And she supports SOPA:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111104clinton
Re: Re: Re:
Nice argument from authority.
Got a logical argument?
Re: ?
Why do you even crawl out of your hole? Go away.
The pregnancy story is a smear and high tech lynching of Bieber… look at the timing… the real story is the proposed law hijacking IP on the internets.
CONSPIRICY!!
But for reals.
Re: Re:
I do have to agree. It is very odd timing.
Mike, Justin Bieber isn’t going to jail. The “story” panned out when journalists realized the claim was bogus.
Re: Re:
Well he’s not going to jail *now*, I thought the idea was that if sopa passed and *then* Justin Bieber started doing his first youtube videos, he’d face legal action rather than being given a contract.
Re: Re: Re:
If future Bieber faces any legal trouble, SOPA would have had nothing to do with it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yah right and I’m Santa Claus.
Re: Re:
Terry, with all due respect to your lack of experience in this field, your analysis was one opinion. Multiple lawyers who actually work in the field have noted that your analysis was lacking, and that someone in Justin Bieber’s shoes could easily face felony charges under SOPA.
I find it interesting, however, that you position yourself as the final arbiter of interpretations of the bill, and then mock others — including many who have been in this field much longer than you.
Separately, the fact that you keep harping on the concerns people had about previous copyright laws, ignoring that many of those concerns contributed to the softening of those bills (and that other concerns turned out to be wholly prescient), makes me wonder when you switched over from your claim of objective analysis to one in which you simply parrot the dying legacy industry’s talking points, come hell or high water.
Separately, voting for your own comments is considered pretty crass.
Re: Re: Re:
The tenor of your comment concerning Mr. Hart is off putting to the extreme. If you disagree, then fine, but to take gratuitous digs that do nothing to promote cordial and thoughtful discourse should be beneath you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The tenor of your comment concerning Mr. Hart is off putting to the extreme. If you disagree, then fine, but to take gratuitous digs that do nothing to promote cordial and thoughtful discourse should be beneath you.
I have to admit, that you’re my favorite commenter on this site. You come here day after day, insulting me, always in the most pedantic way possible, and then you always pretend to get offended when I take someone to task.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Only in your mind can my comments be construed as “insulting” you personally.
You can trust me that if I ever had an intent to “insult” you I would simply resort to using your dictionary of terms you regularly use to put down those who may disagree with your legal analysis.
I have said it before, but it bears repeating. People can hold differing opinions on a subject, and yet carry on thoughtful and respectful conversations/discussions/debates. I am mindful of this when I submit a comment, and reciprocity would be very much appreciated.
BTW, your comment was a nice segue in a direction wholly removed from my comment. The issue here is specifically your treatment of Mr. Hart by a series of not so subtle put downs that were purely gratuitous,irrelevant, and professional slights taking “mocking” to new heights.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
oooh, big words for the psycho who threatened Mikes wife and kid. Stop pretending your civil and make your move, psycho stalker.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I urge you to take a look at the icons associated with comments, whereupon you will realize that you have me confused with someone else.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
The icons just work for one thread the language used and maneirrism are what give you out.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
IP maximists think that they are the only ones smart enough to figure this out. What most others consider common sense, IP maximists consider genius.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No, I think he got it correct.
Re: Re: Re:
Terry, with all due respect to your lack of experience in this field, your analysis was one opinion. Multiple lawyers who actually work in the field have noted that your analysis was lacking, and that someone in Justin Bieber’s shoes could easily face felony charges under SOPA.
Saying “I know a bunch of lawyers” isn’t an answer.
Bieber won’t face felony charges.
I’ll be happy to debate you or your secret lawyer friends on that issue.
I find it interesting, however, that you position yourself as the final arbiter of interpretations of the bill, and then mock others — including many who have been in this field much longer than you.
I didn’t mock anyone. I didn’t position myself as final arbiter. I offered my opinion, and I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by that.
Separately, the fact that you keep harping on the concerns people had about previous copyright laws, ignoring that many of those concerns contributed to the softening of those bills (and that other concerns turned out to be wholly prescient), makes me wonder when you switched over from your claim of objective analysis to one in which you simply parrot the dying legacy industry’s talking points, come hell or high water.
I know, freedom of speech and constitutional rights, who needs them, right? Sorry, I think these are important. I’ll keep hammering on them, come hell or high water.
Separately, voting for your own comments is considered pretty crass.
Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don’t see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought ‘crassness’ was something the crowd would take care of.
I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by that.
If you don’t want people voting for their own comments then block it, otherwise you sound like Emily Post.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bieber won’t face felony charges.
Funny how you comment how Bieber won’t face felony charges and yet ignore how SOPA will condemn the next generation of Biebers.
Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don’t see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought ‘crassness’ was something the crowd would take care of.
How disappointing…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Saying “I know a bunch of lawyers” isn’t an answer.
Nor is it what I said. Misrepresenting people who disagree with you is a pretty weak cop out.
Bieber won’t face felony charges.
Right. Because you say so. Others disagree. Well, no one disagrees that Bieber himself won’t — because he’s too big. But, as others have pointed out, some of us worry about the next Bieber.
I didn’t mock anyone. I didn’t position myself as final arbiter. I offered my opinion, and I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by that.
An opinion is “based on these reasons, I don’t believe SOPA will impact Bieber.” Positioning yourself as the final arbiter is making a statement of fact, as you did with: “Mike, Justin Bieber isn’t going to jail.”
And, trust me, my feelings are not hurt by that. I just think you look foolish.
I know, freedom of speech and constitutional rights, who needs them, right? Sorry, I think these are important. I’ll keep hammering on them, come hell or high water.
WTF, Terry? Who said anything about free speech or constitutional rights? My point was that you do so in the most misleading of manners, and yet you act as if you are presenting objective information. Your willingness to strip context from the quotes, ignore that many of the predictions were actually accurate is really quite ridiculous to many of us who have watched how the expansion of copyright has done so much harm.
Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don’t see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought ‘crassness’ was something the crowd would take care of.
Just letting you know how people feel. Thought you might want to know.
I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by that.
Again, Terry, nothing you could do would ever hurt my feelings.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You seem a little irritated Masnik. Why don’t you try some Vagisil or something.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Because he doesn’t, as opposed to you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m finding it hard to take a lawyer who doesn’t know what freedom of speech and constitutional rights are seriously.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The crowd will take care of crassness because everyone knows what type of guy votes for himself and so for there to be no doubt in your mind as to what it is being said, that guy is not the kind you invite into your home or trust.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don’t see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought ‘crassness’ was something the crowd would take care of. “
Mike, who repeatedly goes out of his way to be polite and courteous, especially to those who disagree with and/or insult him was just pointing out to you some common sense.
Your reference to Emily Post indicates that you have at least an awareness of etiquette. Perhaps with the Thanksgiving holiday coming up you can return home and get your mother to teach you some.
Re: Re: Re:
Mike, why don’t you disclose your conflicts of interest here. You’re conspiring with aliens from the planet Ork to take over the world in 2012. The Mayans have been warning us about this for centuries. Stop denying it already. Come clean.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are people voting this funny?
It is clearly insightful.
Re: Re: Re:
“that someone in Justin Bieber’s shoes could easily face felony charges under SOPA. “
The whole “beiber in jail” thing was pretty much bull from the word go. Even if SOPA was enacted today, his past postings wouldn’t be subject to it, and at best could be DMCA’ed down.
So Beiber ain’t going to jail, and so the story pretty much disappears as soon as enough of the media figures out that it’s just a bullshit attempt to trick them into paying attention.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is it so hard for people like you to understand our problems with SOPA?
Okay, here’s what we’re saying. Let’s pretend Justin Bieber is not at this moment in time a mega-star in the world of pop music. Let’s pretend that at this moment in time, he’s just your average teenager, no-one’s heard of him and that SOPA has passed and it’s now an official law, enforced by the police.
Bieber then takes it into his head, to record himself singing songs by Usher. He records using a video camera and posts the videos to Youtube. However, SOPA says he has now committed a felony. Some over-zealous lawyer working for Usher and/or his label sees the video and, frothing at the mouth, charges him with a crime. This teen, who has done nothing wrong (just posted a video of him singing a song to Youtube) is in court, and sentenced to up to five years in prison.
We also have concerns that SOPA will stop the next “Bieber”. The next big sensation in music, who started out violating copyright (yes, that’s what Bieber did, by covering Usher’s songs) but instead of locking him away, someone clever will decide to use him to make money.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Some over-zealous lawyer working for Usher and/or his label sees the video and, frothing at the mouth, charges him with a crime.
Ummmm….. that’s not how the US criminal justice system works. A private attorney can’t charge anyone with a crime. That’s the prerogative of the government. Thanks for the FUD though.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
that’s not how the US criminal justice system works. A private attorney can’t charge anyone with a crime. That’s the prerogative of the government.
Except… That’s exactly how our government seems to work. At the behest of corporations.
If your name is Peter Adekeye or Aaron Swartz, then you’re a criminal before facts are known. But I guess you forgot about the private right to action that opens up a can of worms, allowing someone like the UFC to bully the internet.
But I guess that’s all ignored when even the Feds can’t follow the rules.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“that’s not how the US criminal justice system works. A private attorney can’t charge anyone with a crime. That’s the prerogative of the government.”
Except… That’s exactly how our government seems to work. At the behest of corporations.
If your name is Peter Adekeye or Aaron Swartz, then you’re a criminal before facts are known. But I guess you forgot about the private right to action that opens up a can of worms, allowing someone like the UFC to bully the internet.
But I guess that’s all ignored when even the Feds can’t follow the rules.
Jay, I know it’s a weekend but isn’t it a bit early in the morning to be hitting a blunt? The douche said private attorneys can bring criminal charges. And like an idiot, you rush in to defend him. A private right of action isn’t a criminal action either. How is that relevant?
I don’t think either you or I are privy to the full story on Adekeye or Swartz. Though it’s somewhat telling Swartz sought to disguise his identity by looking out of the holes in his bike helmet. That at least speaks to state of mind.
The bigger question is what are you and the other Techdirtbags going to do after these bills pass? Will your lives still have purpose? Lest you contemplate surrendering to the despair after getting your ass kicked on PROTECT IP, there’s one glimmer of hope. If the Republicans win, I believe you’ll see a number of national security type bills that will reallytighten the screws. Industrial espionage is a very hot topic and there is a lot of talk about far greater control over the internet in the interest of economic security. Naturally, that will make freeloading even more difficult. In the meantime, buy some popcorn and watch the 11/16 hearing for the STOP Act on C-SPAN. I think you’ll find it educational.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I don’t know about the others but for me it changes nothing, I’m hopping it gets ridiculous, that is the best thing to ever happen in America in a long time.
Why?
Look outside your window creepy person, OWS is all over it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I don’t know about the others but for me it changes nothing, I’m hopping it gets ridiculous, that is the best thing to ever happen in America in a long time.
Why?
Look outside your window creepy person, OWS is all over it.
Hahahahahahahaha…. first whiff of tear gas and you pussies scatter like cockroaches. Make sure to wear a Techdirt or EFF hoodie so the cops know you’re in particular need of a corrective measures.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Or I can just rip you off forever without you being able to stop me or anyone LoL
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Have you bought your mask yet?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058020/How-Guy-Fawkes-masks-symbol-anti-greed-protests-globe.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Surrender you will be assimilated.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Wow, you seriously went off the deep end on this reply. What, can’t realize what a blue hyperlink is? They aren’t criminal yet.
How is that relevant?
In terms of having the government falsely accusing people of seizures and takedowns, that’s already been occurring. It’s suggested reading to see how Cysco really went after Adekeye since you’re at a disadvantage now. But I like how you make one small detail of Rikuo’s post and make it the example, not understanding that the corporations (hint: Universal, MPAA, UFC, etc) would use government resources to restrict competition by criminalizing linking.
If the Republicans win, I believe you’ll see a number of national security type bills that will reallytighten [sic] the screws.
Judging by the fact that no one has faith in Congress right now, I’m sure that piracy has been the only thing they agree on. (Hint: The blue text? That’s a link)
Paying attention to politics, I know that we’re gearing up for war with Iran. But this won’t really cut down on piracy. But keep dreaming. I’m sure you’ll have plenty of people that agree with you. You’ll just have to stop looking at that mirror for five seconds.
Industrial espionage is a very hot topic and there is a lot of talk about far greater control over the internet in the interest of economic security.
Going to be quite difficult when those in power have to worry about getting reelected but we’ll see…
Naturally, that will make freeloading even more difficult.
*sigh*
All the evidence that shows this won’t even put a dent in piracy and you still have faith based evidence that this will work. The bonus for passing this law must be pretty high. So sad that you never bring evidence to the fore.
Oh well, better luck next time Bucko. Maybe your disingenuous arguments will work next time.
In the meantime, buy some popcorn and watch the 11/16 hearing for the STOP Act on C-SPAN
Intriguing. Nothing on that right now on the C-SPAN site. 10 days left.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No the frakers just need to go complain to the AG which they have on speed dial.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
A wonderful story, except…
since YouTube in your example is subject to the law as well, they require any new video posting to be checked, and require that the poster provide proper ID or documentation for the music. As Beiber is unable to do this, he just can’t get it done.
Alternately, the music industry reaches a global agreement with Youtube for this sort of video, with YouTube agreeing to pay an amount X for every play. As a result, the Beiber video is classed as “using copyright content” and youtube pays to run it. If there is a DMCA notice on it, they will still take it down, but they would not be specifically liable under SOPA because of their master agreement.
Those are two examples.
The next Beiber? Maybe he will sing his own songs.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The next Beiber? Maybe he will sing his own songs.
Because people putting up videos of what came before is really a criminal act
Why does everyone think that singing a song is a criminal act when one person sang it first?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Once anybody sings a song it is his own song. just because beating children judges don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it is not true.
Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No he ain’t but a lot of other Biebers will.
This just proves that even very bad laws can bring good things.
LoL
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The media is mostly IP maximist in nature, so of course they will tend to ignore it.
Sure, Beiber going to jail would be absurd, but the point is that our laws are absurd. Look how long copy protection lengths are. Corporations write the laws and the government passes them. Corporations have no regard for how ridiculous their written laws are, so long as they serve corporate interests. So it’s not that hard to imagine that our broken government would pass such bad laws or that our corporate lawmakers would write them.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If corporate lifespan is ‘infinite’ and human lifespan is +/- 70 years on average, we can conclude that all laws written with a longer than 70 year ‘span’ are beholden solely to corporate interests and can be abolished in the coming revolution.
Re: Re: Re:
LOL, EPIC BURN. Hey Terry(Mike stalker),you better get to the ER quick before those 3rd degree burns start to scab..
Re: Re: Re:
Terry, with all due respect to your lack of experience in this field, your analysis was one opinion. Multiple lawyers who actually work in the field have noted that your analysis was lacking, and that someone in Justin Bieber’s shoes could easily face felony charges under SOPA.
Can you point us to their written analysis so we can see their arguments for ourselves. Just saying other lawyers disagree doesn’t advance the conversation. Terry’s offered his opinion and reasoning. Let’s look at theirs.
Separately, voting for your own comments is considered pretty crass.
Voting on your own comments is one thing. I don’t think I’ve done it, but I’m going to do it right after I post this just to see if it works. But Terry’s right. Shame on you for abusing your role as site admin and betraying your commentators’ privacy like that. If you don’t want people voting on their own posts, just disable the feature. But calling out a user for doing it? Shame on you. We all know that you only betray users when they are your critics, though. Nothing sleazy or desperate or un-classy about that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sleazy, desperate, and un-classy are hallmarks of Mike Masnick’s piracy apologism, in case you haven’t noticed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is one of the area where Mike is a little weak: Understanding that not all laywers agree, and on most issues you can always find a few that will chicken little and say whatever he needs.
Most lawyers would take a much more “wait and see” approach on something like this. We don’t have the finished markup on any of these bills. We don’t have the post legislation posting that explains the actually implementation of them (normally published in the gazette before the actually in service date of new laws), and we don’t know what the interactions will be between existing copyright law, DMCA, and the new laws, as well as how they touch the 1at amendment rights, etc.
Rushing off (as EFF has done) to yell “Beiber in jail!” is pretty much chicken little, and shows them off as a group more interested in scare mongering than dealing with the issues are they come. Their staff laywers appear more than willing to issue all sorts of dire warnings, without even waiting to see the final law.
Mike, there will always be some lawyers that will substantially agree with your point of view. That doesn’t make your point of view right, it just makes it a point of view. Give Terry the respect for also having a point of view that is backed up by logic that is at least as sound as your own. It is much more useful than your clear efforts to shout him down.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Most lawyers would take a much more “wait and see” approach on something like this.”
If a law has the potential of causing serious harm, we should just take a ‘wait and see’ approach?
Mike is pointing out that the law could potentially put people in jail for trivial reasons. A ‘wait and see’ approach is not the correct approach, a, ‘lets fix this potential problem ahead of time’ approach is. We should word the bill to make clear that people aren’t to go to jail for trivial reasons before the bill passes.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
(IOW, we need to ensure the bill is properly and carefully worded ahead of time, we shouldn’t ‘wait and see’ after the bill passes. That’s nonsense and that’s no way for bills to be passed, especially potentially dangerous ones).
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Plus, the fact that one would take a ‘wait and see’ approach suggests how ambiguous the bill could be and how broadly it could be interpreted. Waiting and seeing isn’t the solution to this potential problem, making the bill clearly worded ahead of time is.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Rushing off (as EFF has done) to yell “Beiber in jail!” is pretty much chicken little, and shows them off as a group more interested in scare mongering than dealing with the issues are they come.
Oh please…
The EFF isn’t scare mongering by showing how this bill gives way too much power to a small group of people or are you forgetting that there are no consequence for a copyright holder getting it wrong on their end? The brunt of the problem is felt by the accuser before they have a chance to defend themselves.
Lose time from defending themselves in court.
Lose money by pay advertisers having to pull back their services.
Lost time and money with a court case to fix their reputation.
Unless you have something that says a defendent can do the EXACT SAME thing to someone else, they pretty much have it spot on.
Give Terry the respect for also having a point of view that is backed up by logic that is at least as sound as your own.
From where I’m standing and judging by the replies here, Terry seems the more immature person. Why should I believe someone who has no respect for other’s opinion and believes himself to be the final say in constitutional matters?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
From where I’m standing and judging by the replies here, Terry seems the more immature person. Why should I believe someone who has no respect for other’s opinion and believes himself to be the final say in constitutional matters?
Might I suggest you move from the location where you presently standing to another location that affords you a broader view of the issues associated with the Senate and House of Representatives bills. It may not change your mind, but at least it would give you a different perspective.
The only individual who has criticized Mr. Hart here in the manner noted in your quote above is Mr. Masnick, and in doing so Mr. Masnick cast aside civil discourse with numerous professional slights that were wholly unwarranted and inappropriate by any yardstick.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The only individual who has criticized Mr. Hart here in the manner noted in your quote above is Mr. Masnick, and in doing so Mr. Masnick cast aside civil discourse with numerous professional slights that were wholly unwarranted and inappropriate by any yardstick.
By stating how multiple lawyers disagree with his position?
By stating how Mr. Hart’s comments seem to have a finality to them, be it intended or otherwise?
By showing how his position has changed from one of analyzing copyright for the benefit of all into one that seems to support whatever the MPAA or RIAA want him to say?
Perhaps voting for your own comments shows what kind of person they’re dealing with?
I saw Mr. Masnick criticize Mr. Hart for those points. The response to that post was lacking. Civil discourse seems to have been the better part of Mr. Masnick’s day, not Mr. Hart’s.
My view stands, good sir.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No one needs to wait and see if shit will stink.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
By the way Terry the wart doesn’t deserve respect, that blog of his is hust horrendous, the guy is an idiot and that is being kind, because I’m starting to think that he is not stupid but corrupt, with all that nonsense that he publishes over there that get it wrong most of the time.
Anybody remember him defending Righthaven?
I do.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
>Shame on you for abusing your role as site admin and betraying your commentators’ privacy like that. If you don’t want people voting on their own posts, just disable the feature. But calling out a user for doing it? Shame on you.
The IP shills are quick to complain how the “Techdirt choir” votes for their own posts… so why can’t we do the same about the Techdirt antichoir?
irony
anyone else find it ironic that this story posted just after the story “Good Content Doesn’t Get Buried By Bad Content”?
Re: irony
i blame the media
Gee Pirate Mike, perhaps you should adjust your FUDder?
The cynic in me laughs at how convenient this is. I would not be surprised at all if she was paid off to distract from the issue.
Hmm, considering the amount of different names associated with SOPA perhaps you should also search for E-PARASITE and PROTECT IP.
Oh wait…
PROTECT IP shows even less with a grand total of 13 results.
And E-PARASITE shows, drum roll please …
Three, yes that’s right, three results.
Of course there is no reason that a pop star whose career started on youtube would know anything about a law that couldn’t possibly be interpreted as disruptive to the internet. Yes, that was sarcasm.
Welcome to...
the United States of America where entertainment value is much higher than the real issues and lawyers make more money than people that create/invent/build things.
Welcome.
Now pay up.
Re: Welcome to...
Bread and circuses man, bread and circuses.
Why did you only search for “Bieber Sopa”? Why not a search for “Bieber s.978”, or “Bieber streaming” or “Bieber YouTube”? Why look only at Google News search results? The numbers are misleading, since a single press release can end up in dozens of online news sites, making it seem like there is a lot of talk on a subject, when really it is the same story and the same wording repeated over and over again. And these search results tell nothing about how many readers there are; a single story in the New York Times has far more impact than a dozen musings on Justin Bieber fan blogs. Finally, SOPA legitimately has nothing to do with Justin Bieber, so of course you will not find many news stories dealing with both topics.
Re: Re:
I’m guessing “Bieber youtube” would generate millions of hits, all without addressing the simple fact that the press loves sexual scandal more than it loves discussing bills working their way through the legislation process.
Of course, only one of these will have far-reaching impact well into the future. And it won’t be Bieber’s alleged love child.
“Bieber +s.978” = 34 hits. Sure, there’s 41 million hits overall, but “a single story in the New York Times has far more impact than a dozen musings on Justin Bieber fan blogs.”
If I follow your logic, certain news agencies are far more important than dozens of blogs but they’re just repeating the same press releases, so it doesn’t count because it skews the numbers. Is that about right? No matter how the search is presented, it’s wrong because “SOPA legitimately has nothing to do with Justin Bieber.” ???
Re: Re:
You shouldn’t dismiss the raw numbers, the relevance in them is not on the content, but how many times is being reposted elsewhere and what if it is positive or negative.
It shows the level of interest of people in a certain subject.
Any porn search will yeld millions of results, if you look up your name you probably get a few thousand hits.
“Which story is actually more important?”
thats a hard one to answer, hmmmmmm im going to say it a tie
Some of the “secret lawyer friends” are listed here: https://fightfortheftr.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/justin-bieber-says-s-978-is-wrong/
Looks to me like it would be pretty easy to hijack those results. Just write a story with something approximate to the following headline and watch the hits roll in,
“Bieber Baby’s Dad (Justin Bieber) Opposes SOPA.”
Is it 1984 already?
I somehow feel that 1984 has arrived already and no one noticed it. But the strange thing is we didn’t need a ministry of truth to generate the opiate of inconsequential news that keeps today’s proles happy and stops them thinking about the real issues that those in power don’t want then to think about. Things like the perpetual wars against demonized enemies, the constant erosion of civil liberties and the growth of inequality of wealth.
So how did it happen?
Re: Is it 1984 already?
Sorry you missed the memo (it was secured for double plus good viewers only)…
The Ministry of Truth was too obvious and had to be replaced with ‘Corporate Media’ which has been doing a fine job of filling the task of keeping the sheeple occupied with ‘entertainment’ stories.
Which story is actually more important?
Importance is a relative term and not the same as popularity.
Justin has thousands and thousands of female fans who want to have his baby.
It takes a jump of understanding to link SOPA to Bieber, as evidenced by some of the comments here.
Ergo; baby fantasy wins importance stake as judged through the glasses of Google and the next Bieber may end up entertaining Baba.
I think the Google-fu of some is weak.
A redirect search for “bieber stop online piracy”(which is the full name of the thing and not the acronym) results in Bing showing 2,100,000 entries.
Or maybe Google is censoring the searches, or Google screwed up the alghorithm.
PS: Most of the entries on the first page of Bing are about how bad the legislation is.
428,000 is the amount of results Bing returns for “bieber sopa”
Is Google falling behind Microsoft?
That would be a sad day.
About 3,340,000 results (0.09 seconds)
Hmmm…
http://www.google.com/search?q=bieber+sopa
Why I get 3,340,000 hits?
It is a geolocation thing?
Where are you people searching from? I will get a proxy and see if the number differs.
Even Baidu offers more entries than that.
http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=bieber+sopa (althought the quality of the search is lacking)
Re: Re:
Try a google news search, then you will match Mikes result.
Re: Re: Re:
Why would anyone do that?
The normal search shows more results than that on the first page?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It shows what news outlets (i.e. the media) are talking about. Also you tend to get a different kind of article at the end, I actually use the news search fairly often.
The vastly differing amount of results for the differing bieber searches implies bias in the media (surely not) on this topic.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Actually it doesn’t it filters more than the normal search and let a lot out.
Based on my own results of the search I must consider that:
– This may be a prank.
– Google may have messed up its algorithm or for some reason it shows different results in certain areas and not others.
– Google may have censored the results(ordered or otherwise).
– Google may have been censored by another party in the middle.
Justin Bieber's love Child is more important!
To be honest, I’m not a citizen of the USA. I don’t even want to visit the USA during holidays. I’m from the Netherlands so US legislation is mindnumbingly boring to me. And it’s unlikely to have any effects on me. But if some woman has the love child of Justin Bieber then I want to know every detail of this whole story! So, please tell us more about little Bieb… 🙂
Re: Justin Bieber's love Child is more important!
The alledged “love child” looks almost like his twin, and both he and the child look to be about the same age.
Re: Re: Justin Bieber's love Child is more important!
At first I wondered how that woman had gotten pregnant anyways. Lesbians can’t become pregnant from each other! 🙂
But now I realise that Justin is secretly a boy. Well, that’s a great hidden secret. 🙂
Don’t forget that Bieber had a wildly popular hit song named “Baby,” which is probably a big part of the first search results, although the paternity would pop up at the top because it’s more current.
Curious why neither 51 nor 52 have “vote boxes” next to them. I had hoped to note my comments as being “insightful” to see if they too would engender an “outing”.
squirrel!
AHAHAHA
Let’s look at two consecutive Techdirt headlines, shall we?
Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber’s Concerns With Regulating The Internet
(from the priorities,-people dept)
Good Content Doesn’t Get Buried By Bad Content
(from the make-more-good-content dept)
While I actually agree with a lot of what Mike says, I think these two headlines are simply hilarious in sequence, because it shows that the burial or non-burial of “good content” is irrelevant if it’s never created in the first place.
funny
I find it funny that this girl, who is over 18, is claiming that Bieber, who is under 18, is the father of this kid.
Rape anyone?
Re: funny
Oh, don’t you know it’s only rape if a man does it?
Just to let you know; The text under the second picture is also a link, which goes to the second image.
Not really an accurate comparison
Which story is actually more important? The one in which the government makes massive regulatory changes to the internet that will create felons out of ordinary people? Or the story about a baby that a pop star may or may not have fathered?
The comparison is: a pop star’s opinion about the government making massive regulatory changes to the internet that will create felons out of ordinary people? Or the story about a baby that a pop star may or may not have fathered?
Both would register somewhere around “who cares” for me.
Here's a solution, but you must act NOW! Don't wait until it's too late!
Mike should sink a little (for the greater good!) and write a quintessential link-bait article, complete with a catchy headline and all. Say, for example:
“Justin Bieber to face felony charges under new law”
or
“5 reasons why Justin Bieber will go to prison next year”
or
“Do you want Bieber out of jail? You are not alone! 3 ways to stop the madness TODAY”
etc.
As for the article itself, it should be written in a language targeted to non-TD readers and should be the right mix of FUD, credibility and call-to-action so that it gets shared around.
Do it for the greater good, Mike!!!
Re: Here's a solution, but you must act NOW! Don't wait until it's too late!
“Mike should sink a little (for the greater good!) and write a quintessential link-bait article, complete with a catchy headline and all. Say, for example:
“Justin Bieber to face felony charges under new law”
or
“5 reasons why Justin Bieber will go to prison next year”
or
“Do you want Bieber out of jail? You are not alone! 3 ways to stop the madness TODAY”
etc.
As for the article itself, it should be written in a language targeted to non-TD readers and should be the right mix of FUD, credibility and call-to-action so that it gets shared around.
Do it for the greater good, Mike!!!”
He already does this. In just about every article.
Re: Here's a solution, but you must act NOW! Don't wait until it's too late!
“Mike should sink a little (for the greater good!) and write a quintessential link-bait article, complete with a catchy headline and all. Say, for example:
“Justin Bieber to face felony charges under new law”
or
“5 reasons why Justin Bieber will go to prison next year”
or
“Do you want Bieber out of jail? You are not alone! 3 ways to stop the madness TODAY”
etc.
As for the article itself, it should be written in a language targeted to non-TD readers and should be the right mix of FUD, credibility and call-to-action so that it gets shared around.
Do it for the greater good, Mike!!!”
He already does this. In just about every article.
Re: Re: Here's a solution, but you must act NOW! Don't wait until it's too late!
Oh so that is why you get hooked always 🙂
Bieber embeds
Ok. Simple thought exercise for the SOPA apologists insisting this won’t put Bieber in jail, because the only party it would implicate would be YouTube.
If Bieber uploads to YouTube *and* embeds on his own personal site… under your interpretation of the law, does he now face felony charges?
Inquiring minds want to know…
Re: Bieber embeds
It’s easier for an IP maximist to simply call everyone that disagrees with them extreme than to actually discuss any of these issues seriously and substantially. Don’t expect much meaningful debate from them. You’re wasting your time.
Re: Bieber embeds
Ok. Simple thought exercise for the SOPA apologists insisting this won’t put Bieber in jail, because the only party it would implicate would be YouTube.
If Bieber uploads to YouTube *and* embeds on his own personal site… under your interpretation of the law, does he now face felony charges?
Inquiring minds want to know…
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around all of this. I know YouTube has licenses with the PROs. Would these licenses not cover the next Bieber’s cover songs? Or put another way, how are these performances not licensed?
Re: Re: Bieber embeds
Judging from past experiences, all the “copyright holder” would have to say is that it’s not authorized. So by that word of mouth they unleash the hounds of hell to strike a stake in the ground against piracy.
Meanwhile, three new holes show up in their story and the rest of the world wonders WTF they’re doing by punishing kids for singing.
Re: Re: Re: Bieber embeds
Judging from past experiences, all the “copyright holder” would have to say is that it’s not authorized. So by that word of mouth they unleash the hounds of hell to strike a stake in the ground against piracy.
But if YouTube has a blanket license with a PRO that allows YouTube to publicly perform the catalog, how would Bieber’s cover version not be protected by that licensing that YouTube has in place?
Re: Re: Re:2 Bieber embeds
It could also depend on the nature of the licensing relative to derivative works. Also, when youtube plays the music, presumably (depending on how it was licensed) they are paying a royalty per rendition of the original. If someone uploads a derivative work one would have to work out the details of who gets paid what and how.
Re: Re: Re:3 Bieber embeds
It could also depend on the nature of the licensing relative to derivative works. Also, when youtube plays the music, presumably (depending on how it was licensed) they are paying a royalty per rendition of the original. If someone uploads a derivative work one would have to work out the details of who gets paid what and how.
YouTube’s “blanket through-to-the-listener license” with ASCAP has been the subject of litigation. The court explains that the public performance of ASCAP music on YouTube includes “user-uploaded videos showing amateur music groups and performers.” United States v. Am. Soc’y of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 616 F. Supp. 2d 447, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). So videos like Bieber’s of people singing cover songs are protected by the blanket license. And if that’s the case, nobody’s going to jail for covering songs on YouTube.
Re: Re: Re:4 Bieber embeds
And what happens when the copyright holders take that option away, as Warner did in 2009?
Re: Re: Re:5 Bieber embeds
From what I could gather, it looks like when YouTube wanted to figure out what its ASCAP licensing rates should be it went to court. Not surprisingly, ASCAP tried to compute all of the music on YouTube that would require a license. They identified cover songs sung by amateurs as material that would need public performance licensing, and those types of performances were covered.
Now what are you talking about that happened in 2009? Got a link? Is is anything that would make us think that YouTube somehow later changed its mind and decided not to pay for licensing for cover songs? If not, this FUD about Bieber really seems baseless and manufactured.
Re: Re: Re:5 Bieber embeds
I found someone else saying that licensing would cover Bieber: http://actonline.org/act-blog/2011/10/21/hillicon-valley-gets-duped-by-anti-ipr-%E2%80%9Cactivists%E2%80%9D/
Seems like Mike could easily contact YouTube to find out if covers by the likes of Bieber are covered by the blanket licensing that YouTube has. In fact, I don’t understand how they couldn’t be given what can be gleaned about their licensing from the ASCAP case I quoted.
But of course Mike will not actually get to the truth behind this “story.” It’s all about FUD with Mike. If Bieber actually wouldn’t go to jail because YouTube has licenses, Mike won’t “report” on that. Good God, Mike could never admit that.
Re: Re: Re:4 Bieber embeds
And if that’s the case, nobody’s going to jail for covering songs on YouTube.
Just on any other web site, but who cares about them, amirite?
Result are biased
I’m not actually a fan of Bieber, but doesn’t he have a song called ‘Baby’ or something….would that skew the results a bit?
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
Mike, those numbers can be misleading – see Randall Munroe’s comments on Google search numbers here: http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/02/04/trochee-chart/
It’s all good. The more of these types of laws they make, the more people will ignore them. All they do is teach the masses to view the law in general as nothing to take seriously.
TBH, half of the comedy is that Congress wants to be seen doing something, they don’t actually care what. I have yet to meet more than a handful of Senators or Representatives that have actually read any proposed laws outside of ones they sponsor, and half of those are written by lobbyists during a drinking binge weekend.