RIAA Explains Its Interpretation Of SOPA; Which Doesn't Seem To Be Found In The Bill Itself

from the interesting... dept

Rafe Needleman put together a fascinating roundtable discussion over SOPA and PIPA involving Larry Downes and Mitch Glazier. Downes, you may recall, wrote an excellent article highlighting the myriad problems with SOPA. Glazier on the flip side, once (while he worked for Congress) sneakily changed copyright law without anyone noticing, to screw over musicians. Thankfully, his handiwork was undone after a bunch of musicians noticed and complained... though, by that point he had left to become a high-paid lobbyist for the RIAA -- where he now holds the number two slot. He's there to argue for the record labels, not artists, of course.
Glazier makes a bunch of interesting, if slightly incredible, statements during the 40 minute discussion -- starting with his claim that the ProIP Act (from a few years ago, not to be confused with PROTECT IP from this year) allowed for the government to seize "criminal" websites. That's not clear at all. While it is true that the government is relying on the text of ProIP for such seizures -- the text in question was clearly designed to cover the seizure of things like machinery to print DVDs/CDs. There are significant legal questions, currently being heard in court, over whether or not ProIP actually allows the government to seize websites as it has.

Then they get into the meat of things, with Glazier bizarrely and incorrectly claiming that PIPA and SOPA are very similar. That's pretty shocking since the two bills are extremely different in important ways. And while he notes at the beginning that the reasons for this new law were to apply what was in the ProIP bill to foreign sites, he doesn't note that SOPA applies to domestic sites as well (something that SOPA supporters keep ignoring). He also claims that the exceptionally vague and broad definitions found in SOPA as to what constitutes "dedicated to theft of U.S. property" are nothing new or special -- saying the first three come from the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions (a hugely problematic part of the current DMCA), and the latter two come from recent Supreme Court rulings. That's an interesting take... and one that's not quite true. For example, he claims that the inducement definition comes from the Grokster ruling, but that's not true. The standard in the bill is much broader. Now, it's true that the RIAA has pretended that the definition in the bill is what the Supreme Court said in Grokster, but the Supreme Court laid out some specifics that are not found in the bill.

Then there's a stunning bit of ridiculousness. Downes points out the problems of letting private parties take down entire sites based on a mere portion of a site being infringing, and Glazier claims this is wrong, and that SOPA is only about enforcement -- such that it means that "the remedy is limited" to a "portion" of the site. "So instead of saying, if a portion of the site is illegal, the whole site gets taken down, it's the opposite. A court can say if a portion of a site is illegal, only that portion of the site can come down." Now, that's interesting. It's also not true. What Glazier is referring to is the fact that the under the part involving the Attorney General, a court can order just a portion of the site to be blocked (but only to subdomains, not subdirectories), but the private right of action allows for any copyright, trademark, publicity right or patent holder to completely cut off payment or ads to a site based on an accusation. You don't "cut off payment processors" to just a portion of a site.

But note the disingenuous trick. When challenged on the wider impact of the law, focus on one narrow part of it. Sneaky.

Next up Glazier claims that the going after payment processors and ad providers isn't a secondary liability issue, because there's no secondary liability on those guys. Of course, try telling that to Triton Media, an ad provider who the entertainment industry sued for providing ads on sites they felt were "rogue sites." But, again, Glazier is being disingenuous by looking at the wrong thing. The concern isn't the secondary liability directly on the ad or payment players, but on all of their clients. It's over the fact that any site can have all ways to make money cut off with no court review. That's ridiculous.

Rafe then asks Glazier to explain how much piracy has "cost" the "music industry" and Glazier again is misleading (seems he makes a habit of that). First, he only talks about the recording industry, which has been cut in half, rather than the actual music industry (which continues to grow). But he seems to attribute that entirely to piracy, rather than massive infrastructure and market changes. He notes that the number of major labels has dropped from six to four... but that's because of mergers. Whether there's any connection there to "piracy" seems pretty questionable. Then he notes less investment in artists. Yes, by the major labels. But that leaves out that more and more artists don't need the majors to make money any more (whereas in the past they didn't have much choice). Thankfully, Rafe calls him on some of this -- noting the market changes and that unauthorized listens to songs might not be actual losses.

After Glazier admits that they don't really have good data on how much unauthorized use represents real losses, Larry jumps in and points out that this is a key point -- and that we shouldn't be legislating before we have such data. He notes that SOPA requires the IP Czar to study the issue and come up with some data, but rather reasonably questions why we're shooting first, and asking questions later.

The conversation then shifts to the DNS blocking aspect of the debate, a point on which Glazier really shows how to spin with the best of them, claiming that the (significantly worse) SOPA bill was a reaction to the tech industry's concerns with PIPA. That is, in Glazierworld, the much broader remedies in SOPA, which aren't limited to just DNS, are because his industry and the folks who wrote the bill heard the tech guys saying, "DNS blocking is bad," and with SOPA are saying, "okay, well, we give you broad latitude to block something else, if you'd like -- such as IP addresses directly." That this actually makes the problem even worse, and fragments the internet even further, apparently does not occur to Glazier. This is why we shouldn't let non-engineers write laws that impact technology, by the way. Downes properly points out how ridiculous this is, in that it leaves the court to decide if anyone is doing the required blocking in a "reasonable" manner -- and as we've learned from the Great Firewall, when you have such ambiguity, service providers have every incentive to over-block. That's what the RIAA/MPAA are hoping for, of course, but it should horrify anyone who understands how innovation works.

Glazier then makes sure to bring up the industry's favorite comparison: child porn, claiming that DNS blocks are common to block child porn. Of course, that's not quite true, and the CDT v. Pappert case highlighted how we, in the US, do not set up systems for over-blocking, even in cases of child porn. When Rafe challenges him on using "child porn" as an example, Glazier goes all patriotic, talking up the importance of the rule of law and whether or not we believe the rule of law should apply on the internet.

That, of course, is hogwash. Of course the rule of law applies on the internet. No one's arguing that. What we're arguing is that in their desperate attempts to bring back a mythical world that the record labels think existed twenty years ago, they're seeking to massively change the rule of law such that it hinders all sorts of important innovations that everyone agrees should be perfectly legal. The RIAA and their pals at the MPAA are massively overreacting, as they have a long history of doing. The "rule of law" argument was used against the VCR and the mp3 player -- both of which these industries declared should be illegal, because "the rule of law" must apply. So now they're overreacting to the entire internet. Perhaps we should recognize their long history of crying wolf, and maybe, just maybe, not believe them this time.

Downes points out the ridiculous of the private right of action notices... and we learn the SOPA defenders key line in response to that. Glazier says that since payment providers and ad networks have a financial incentive to keep making money from customers, they're unlikely to cut customers off. Apparently Glazier hasn't paid attention to the DMCA. Under the DMCA, service providers also have incentive to keep their users and customers. Yet, to avoid any liability or even the threat of being dragged into court, their first move is to simply take things down. You can bet that will happen here. Of course, this is emblematic of how the RIAA/MPAA folks view these types of issues. They think that as long as cash is being made, service providers will want to continue. But they underestimate the hassle and the fear of being dragged into litigation. To avoid any sort of liability, the ad providers and the payment processors are very likely to simply cut off sites that are accused -- especially if they're accused multiple times. Why bother with the hassle and the risk?

Towards the end of the interview, Glazier falsely claims that the tech industry was either at or invited to the table to negotiate on SOPA. This is false. Yes, the Chamber of Commerce and the MPAA found a few "friendly" (but misguided) tech companies like Monster Cable (who claims that eBay, Craigslist, Costco and Sears are all "rogue" sites) and GoDaddy (who itself could fit under the definition of a "rogue site" in the bill), so they could pretend tech was at the table. But, considering that some of the largest tech industry groups -- CEA, CCIA and NetCoalition were asking for a seat at a table for a while, and were denied, Glazier is, once again, being entirely disingenuous with his claims.

On the whole, Glazier's defense of SOPA isn't too surprising, but it's really misleading, and it's important to see how they mislead, because otherwise people may get fooled into believing the bill is not as disastrous as it really is. Throughout the interview, Mitch continued to talk about going after foreign sites, never acknowledging how SOPA isn't just about foreign sites, and even PIPA puts liability on domestic sites. If it's really true that just a few foreign sites are "the problem," (and they've yet to establish how real "the problem" is), then why craft such broad laws with vague definitions that will surely have unintended consequences... unless the plan all along is to stretch the boundaries of such a law?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

    Poor Riaa

    they can't stem the tide of musicians leaving or not even joining them.
    It only natural they wage war on the tool that made it possible, the internet.
    And like Knut before them, they'll be just as successful

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    The Incoherent One (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:30pm

    Sounds like what we expected from a man that has no idea what the hell he is actually talking about. Great spin master though. He should be running a campaign or lobbying....... wait?

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    "Glazier says that since payment providers and ad networks have a financial incentive to keep making money from customers, they're unlikely to cut customers off. Apparently Glazier hasn't paid attention to the DMCA. Under the DMCA, service providers also have incentive to keep their users and customers. Yet, to avoid any liability or even the threat of being dragged into court"

    This is actually a real issue. Money is what keeps most sites running, and without it, they are done. DMCA and other laws have no real simple way for these companies to be held liable for the types of sites they sell ads or process for. Combine that with DMCA creating no liablity provided takedown notices are handled promptly, and you have a system ripe for abuse by those who seek to profit from the works of others. The ad networks and processors profit from it as well, and feel insulated by being the proverbial "third party".

    Making them a little more liable, making them have to pay attention to who they are doing business with is a positive step.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    "But note the disingenuous trick. When challenged on the wider impact of the law, focus on one narrow part of it. Sneaky."

    Seems to me some of the ACs tend to do the same thing. You point out the overall problem with SOPA (and how broad it is) and they focus on one specific thing only.

    Point out how it can limit free speech and be used to censor sites that aren't committing infringement of any kind, they return with "well, you see, this is going to effect rogue sites and curtail piracy by allowing for those sites committing copyright infringement to be taken down".

    Notice how said response completely ignores the free speech/censorship concern?

    Ignore the main point, focus on something else. Repeat as needed while covering ears and saying "I can't hear you" over and over. (Also, insert insults as needed, along with claims that anything that isn't COMPLETELY in support of SOPA and whatnot is FUD.)

    The previous paragraph (if it can be called that) was my guide on "How To Troll On Techdirt".

    I now await the usual response of "you're just another pro-piracy/piracy apologist like Freetard Mike". (Because if you shoot down their troll comment before it gets said, that's the back-up reply they use. Or a variation thereof.)

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

    Re:

    So why not require court order to stop the payment processors?

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re:

    Too hard, that would require work and risking someone calling you out on lack of evidence

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

    Re:

    You're just another pro-piracy/piracy apologist like Freetard Mike

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:41pm

    Re:

    I beg to differ. It sounds like a man who has expert knowledge of the bill in question, keen awareness of which points he must avoid and which he can play to, an ample supply of talking points and debate tactics...

    ...and not an honest bone in his body.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I see, in court you need evidence, to get a bill passed all you need is hearsay.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:44pm

    Re:

    Then I suppose making them hugely liable even when they've done nothing wrong must be a hugely positive step.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:49pm

    Re: Re:

    And so are you

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    robin, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Re:

    DMCA and other laws have no real simple way for these companies to be held liable for the types of sites they sell ads or process for.


    And the world cheered at the glimmer of common sense, and the people saw that this was good.

    You may return to your regularly scheduled trolling.

    ...DMCA creating no liablity provided takedown notices are handled promptly,


    Taking down 3rd party content IS a liability.

    The ad networks and processors profit from it as well...


    like they do here: http://t.co/wflb9Fm1

    (WARNING: really very ugly material there, but free speech is free speech, right?)

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

    Re:

    Really, why is that we don't make colleges responsible for CP then?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/07/justice/pennsylvania-coach-abuse-charges/index.html

    Or will anybody be obliged to cut off business with Lindsay Lohan a convicted felon?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/07/showbiz/lindsay-lohan-jail/index.html

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    To get a bill passed all you need is money.

    FTFY

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re:

    Ah come on. It's not the same if you're not an actual troll saying it. But I appreciate the gesture.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

    Rule of Law

    It's easy to talk about the importance of the rule of law when you're the one writing the laws.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    The Incoherent One (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re:

    I was thinking more along the technical damage done. I have no doubt in my mind that he knows exactly what they plan on using this bill for, and how far it can be stretched to achieve there overall goals. He is not an idiot by the dictionary definition.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:26pm

    Re:

    "Point out how it can limit free speech and be used to censor sites that aren't committing infringement of any kind, they return with "well, you see, this is going to effect rogue sites and curtail piracy by allowing for those sites committing copyright infringement to be taken down"."

    If the IP maximalists were military leaders, they'd be saying, "Mr. President, we need to launch our nuclear warheads!"

    To which a reasonable voice would point out, "but that would kill lots of innocent civilians in addition to 'the enemy.'"

    To which the IP Maximalists would respond, "This action is only intended to kill the enemy, so civilians have nothing to worry about!"

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:27pm

    Re:

    It's telling that your idea of 'abuse' is actually just a plain reading of the DMCA exactly as it was written. Why do you think they called it a 'safe harbor' provision, or more literally "Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act" if it was not intended to be an outline of standards a site could met to ensure a haven was created that was safe from attack, to ensure the massive liability third party content presented was limited enough to allow such content hosting to continue legally? The way you describe it they're exploiting some kind of loop-hole but that's not true at all, they're following the law exactly as it was written and intended

    The content recording industry, on the other hand, routinely abuses the DMCA by issuing DMCA take-down notices on material they don't own the copyrights for and insisting that jailbreaking electronic devices is illegal under the provisions of the DMCA in spite of the rather specific allowances for circumvention to allow interoperability. I'm sure after SOPA or some similar law is passed this kind of behavior will stop immediately, right?

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:32pm

    Re:

    The "broadness" of the law is a fair bit of misdirection, intended to stop you from looking at the underlying issues, piracy and couterfeiting, and the access of overseas companies to the US market to sell, market, or offer access to what is criminally illegal in the US.

    The broadness issue also tends to ignore the basis on which many of the companies mentioned operate. Youtube, a great example, would be illegal save for provisions of DMCA, and yes, they would be very liable. Would you prefer we just roll back DMCA?

    The other issue that the broadness people tend to bring up sounds an awful lot like the nasty "too big to fail", except that they use "too big to check". Most of the people pushing this issue are also unwilling to consider that many of these companies are not "service providers" but rather content aggregation sites, republishing and redisplaying the content on various pages, with advertising, and other content. We have ended up with most of the internet as a "service provider", exempt from any liability - while profiting from the infringing material that the republish and aggregate.

    So the issue of broadness really isn't the true issue, the issue is that most of these companies are, but for a provision of DMCA, pretty much breaking every other copyright law on the books.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re:

    What exactly are you going to get a court order about, in a reasonable period of time?

    We are talking internet time here... if it takes months (or even years) of back and forth to get a court order, you end up with what, nothing?

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:41pm

    Re: Re:

    Mr Wilson, all I can say is that this is a pathetic piece of FUD.

    It isn't a free speech nuclear weapon. Your analogy is bullshit.

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    *sigh*

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I was thinking more along the technical damage done.

    He, like the entire entertainment industry, simply doesn't care what damage they do.

    If you were to hand them a magic button that would instantly and permanently disable EVERY device in the world that could be used for infringement, they'd press it without hesitation. Then they'd wonder why their recording equipment no longer works.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So sorry, due process is so inconvenient for you.

     

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

  26.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:53pm

    Perhaps Techdirt should change the name "Anonymous Coward" to "Mitch Glazier" so that we all know who we're talking to?

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What exactly are you going to get a court order about, in a reasonable period of time?

    We are talking internet time here... if it takes months (or even years) of back and forth to get a court order, you end up with what, nothing?


    The same could be said about any "crime". So should we simply dispense with the courts altogether and just let the feds do what they want?

     

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

  28.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Re:

    That provision of the DMCA that you think is a loophole, is actually stating the obvious. People who commit crimes should be held liable for committing those crimes. People who build tools that happen to be used to commit crimes should not be held liable for said crimes. Are you suggesting that gun makers should be held liable for all murders? What about knife makers? What about knife sharpeners? What fork makers? Should makers of lock pick sets be liable for breaking and entering? What about the makers of life hammer? My guess is that for all of those you'd agree that the makers shouldn't be held liable. But if the crime is copyright infringement you suddenly think it's OK to go after the YouTubes and the GrooveSharks and the Scribds and the Imgurs and the Hotfiles. That doesn't make any sense.

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:02pm

    Re: Re:

    [looks at your comment, realizes it confirms exactly what I said]

    You ignored even anything remotely close to saying how this will not hurt free speech, nor be considered censorship. As per my example.

    You proved it perfectly actually. You focused exactly on one specific thing, ignoring everything else.

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Rekrul, if a guy is selling pirated tapes on a street corner, the cops shut him down, "seize" the evidence, and he has a day in court in the future. In the mean time, he doesn't get to keep his evidence.

    On the net, a copyright holder sees their work being pirated, they get the IP information and others about the users, they file a lawsuit, and then they can fight for years and years and years to try to get a resolution (Thomas, example). By the time resolution is found, the point has long since been rendered moot.

    Internet time makes the amount of harm possible be amplified, and the speed of the courts makes it almost impossible to do anything about it.

    In the case of most crimes, an alleged criminal business would either be padlocked or put into administrative control when everyone was charged. Why should online be different?

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Lol. He wasn't making it a free speech nuclear weapon analogy. He was just making an analogy as it relates to the example I gave.

    Also, yet again, you prove my point. I see "FUD" in your comment (no facts/evidence to support how it is FUD), I say "your analogy is bullsh*t" (partial ad hominem).

    Read what I wrote SLOWLY. LET IT SINK IN. Then realize you are doing exactly what I said is being done by some ACs. In a harried effort to discredit what I said, you're proving my point. Ignoring what is being said to focus on something else. With an insult and FUD claim thrown in for good measure. While completely missing the point. And offering nothing to back up your claims.

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If a magazine published a story with one disputably infringing photo in an article, would the cops shut them down "seize" the entire company, and deny them a day in court? (this law will not give the accused a day in court)

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

    Kudos to anyone who watched the whole video

    I managed about 1/4th, and then the rage overtook me.. I wanted to punch Mitch Glazier's clock. The amount of deceit and lies that he spouts is just too much.

    It's all based on lies, damned lies and a-grade RIAA-manufactured 100% unnatural bullshit.

    Are these people really willing to destroy everything in their path just so they can pretend to still live in the golden 80s? Are they that delusional?

    Newsflash Mitch, the economy is in the shitter, people aren't spending that much on entertainment, as that's NOT a first need in life. Food and housing is way more important.

    Sure, piracy is happening (as it always has, or have you never recorded a song from the radio on a cassette tape?), and that's mostly because your organisation dropped the ball on that one. With your insane DRM-schemes that hurt your paying customers, basically teaching people not to buy your crap, because it'll hurt their machines. The pirates gave people a better experience at a much lower cost.
    (no SONY rootkit disasters, DVDs that work on any device anywhere in the world, simultaneous releases worldwide, editable subtitles (the amount of mistakes on the official subtitles are just grating))

    Your tactics of the past decade have caused the spike in 'illegal' downloads. You have doomed yourself. And instead of owning up to it, and try to win back the trust of the jilted customers, you criminalize them even more.

    Fine, it's quite clear you don't want to get money. You've lost me as a paying customer for good.

    I'm never buying a single thing from anyone who's even remotely related to the RIAA, the MPAA, the IFPI, the BSA. NOT EVER! You can all go rot in the hells that you've created.

     

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

  34.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:24pm

    Re: Kudos to anyone who watched the whole video

    And stay the hell away from MY internet!

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

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

    A different circumstance. See, the magazine doesn't hide anonymously behind the printing company, and the printing company doesn't hide anonymously behind the paper company, and the paper company doesn't hide behind a bunch of trees in Sweden.

    Magazines have liability from the word go, they can't hide.

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

    Re: Re:

    If offering pirated material is so lucrative, why can't your masters do the same thing? If it's just a simple as repackaging it and offering it with some advertising, then what's stopping you from offering the same service?!

    Many people pay for access to newsgroups, if you can offer a similar product, but legal, for a similar price, why not go for that?
    Oh wait, you could never sell that idea to the dinosaurs running the MPAA and the RIAA, could you? Just like your masters are destroying useful legal services like Hulu and redbox and netflix.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:46pm

    Re: Kudos to anyone who watched the whole video

    I am very proud of you! I have felt that way for several years now, and I hope that others will finally see the light soon. I have begging people to give up that crap. Stop giving them your money. Period. Done. Let them die and shrivel away.

    I'm rooting (read: PAYING) for those that are independent.

    Every time you buy a 'big label' ticket, cd, mp3..etc...you are giving them money to buy the lawyers that will come after you, the paying, legal customer.

    It's like willfully paying the neighborhood bully to come kick you in the stomach and take your lunch money.

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 2:47pm

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

    We were already talking about an analogy from the internet world to the real world. The guy selling tapes on the street corner was your projection of an internet site to the real world, I just used a different projection, one that I feel is more accurate when this law gets applied to YouTube. YouTube is not hiding behind any amount of anonymity, but this law would effectively seize there entire business, for a single disputable mistake on the content it is associated with.

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    MM_Dandy, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 3:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ...if a guy is selling pirated tapes on a street corner, the cops shut him down, "seize" the evidence, and he has a day in court in the future. In the meantime, he doesn't get to keep his evidence.

    Sweet! There's another guy saying things about me that I don't like - so all I have to do to shut him up is tell the cops that he's selling pirated tapes!

     

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

  40.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 3:19pm

    Re:

    How about "Mitch's bitch"?

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 3:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    On the net, a copyright holder sees their work being pirated, they get the IP information and others about the users, they file a lawsuit, and then they can fight for years and years and years to try to get a resolution (Thomas, example). By the time resolution is found, the point has long since been rendered moot.

    The burden of such an accusation is theirs to bear. So what's the problem? If they have the money for these lawsuits, then they should be able to prove it.

    Internet time makes the amount of harm possible be amplified, and the speed of the courts makes it almost impossible to do anything about it.

    Well, thank our drug policy for the court system. Also, no economic harm has been found through piracy. So why attack people's civil liberties?

    In the case of most crimes, an alleged criminal business would either be padlocked or put into administrative control when everyone was charged.

    Except this is a civil complaint. So... How are these businesses (like Google, Yahoo, Topspin, Youtube, Reddit, Stumbleupon, etc) criminal enterprises without any notice of the criminal act they've committed?

     

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

  42.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 3:55pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm sure the music labels were responsible for Lindsay Lohan's criminal actions. So I guess they should be held accountable for that and thus be closed for good.

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 4:28pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Good lord that is the most insightful thing I have read in a month

     

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

  44.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 7:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What, my analogy didn't warrant a "freetard" or a "broadbrush," and only a "FUD?"

    I must be getting rusty.

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 7:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The difference, and it is a rather large one, is that the corporation... IS NOT A COP. Do not give them police powers. Ever. There are already enough /cops/ that abuse those privileges. They can have a business put on hold while litigating, and that's bad enough.

     

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

  46.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 7th, 2011 @ 8:32pm

    Re:

    "Making them a little more liable, making them have to pay attention to who they are doing business with is a positive step."

    Like when they are shipping cocaine?

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2011 @ 8:52pm

    Re: Re: Kudos to anyone who watched the whole video

    That might work if you actually support independents financially and ALSO resolve to not consume (IOW- promote) corporate content.

    Can you do that?

     

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

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2011 @ 6:30am

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

    While the current legal structure does take a long time to result in resolution, it is better than the SOPA alternative.

    Having copyright owners be the ones who determine guilt and forcing punishment (by cutting off all revenue to the site), is wide open for abuse. There are little legal recourses in the bill for a falsely accused and time has shown that various copoyright holders will frequently make false claims or ones that are so bogous and out there it defies logic (see Monster Cable and a bunch of retailers who they don't like). Also, the standards for what it takes to be financially shut down are pretty weak.

    This all sets up SOPA to be massively abused. It allows copyright holders to completely control the uptake of new technology, which was a clear concern in the SCOTUS betamax ruling and factored largely into that ruling.

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2011 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Kudos to anyone who watched the whole video

    Been doing that the last 4 years. :)

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    rxrightsadvocate, Nov 8th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

    anti-piracy bills will cut of access to affordable meds

    Thank you for highlighting that SOPA is much broader than PIPA and that the vague definitions in SOPA will surely have unintended consequences. One consequence that mainstream media has not picked up on is the potential public health impact of both of these bills.

    Both bills could cut off American access to legitimate online pharmacies. The bills inappropriately group real pharmacies — licensed, legitimate pharmacies that require a doctor’s prescription and sell brand-name medications — with rogues — that sell everything from diluted or counterfeit medicine to narcotics without a prescription.

    Forty-eight million Americans neglected to fill their prescriptions due to cost in 2010. This is a serious public health problem. Countless Americans, especially those without insurance and seniors on fixed incomes, simply can't afford the exorbitant costs of prescription drugs in the U.S. Many have found dramatic savings by ordering through legitimate Canadian and other online international pharmacies. Cutting off this virtual lifeline would be unconscionable.

    RxRights is a national coalition of individuals and organizations dedicated to promoting and protecting American consumer access to sources of safe, affordable prescription drugs. The Coalition is asking Americans to send letters to Congress and President Obama encouraging them to oppose this legislation. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.

     

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

  51.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Nov 8th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Isn't that what secondary liability is? :)

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2011 @ 3:37pm

    actually

    Glazier shouldn't just be not allowed to discuss E-parasite/SOPA etc he should be brought before the supreme court, convicted of his treason against the United States, its Congress, its President and its people.

    He should then be executed as befits all traitors to his country, whether that is the electric chair or by firing squad.

    Remember this is a person who DIRECTLY manipulated a formal document in Congress and changed its wording and that is direct and open treason against the US.

    I wonder WHY he hasn't been hauled to prison long before now?

     

    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