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:
And then let's do a search on "bieber sopa." For that... we get... a grand total of 15 news stories (including one from Techdirt):
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?

Filed Under: e-parasite, journalism, justin bieber, priorities, protect ip, sopa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Terry Hart (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:29pm

    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.

Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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