Colbert Takes On SOPA

from the can-we-get-some-internet-policement dept

By the way, I wanted to embed the clips of Colbert's show in this post -- as is clearly allowed by the site. But because Viacom is crazy, they appear to set the embeds to autoplay as soon as you load up the page. And that's freaking annoying. I tried to find hidden variables to stop the autoplay... and nothing worked. So, sorry, no embeds. Meanwhile, Colbert: please, please, turn off autoplay, or at least make it an option. Thankfully, a few folks sent over the secret code to make it work...

Want to see just how mainstream the issues of SOPA and PROTECT IP are becoming? Last night they made it on to The Colbert Report, where he had a bit of a debate about SOPA, between record label owner Danny Goldberg and Harvard professor Jonathan Zittrain. It kicked off with a short segment, where Colbert explained the issue.
As a content provider, I am wholeheartedly against the infringement of copyright... so much so that I had that phrase trademarked and then I had it emblazoned on a Mickey Mouse doll
Which, of course, he then shows to the audience.

But the awesomest part? He quotes the famous $200 to $250 billion in losses claim that always gets thrown around... but then immediately says:
That is a shocking number. Especially when you realize the FBI admits it has "no record of source data or methodology for generating the estimates and that it cannot be corroborated." Now folks, that's what happens when the FBI buys bootleg reports off a card table in Chinatown.
Honestly, this might be the first time I've seen mainstream media -- and a Viacom-owned property, no less -- call out the bogus numbers for being bogus. He finishes by pointing out that YouTube, Twitter and Facebook could be in trouble under the law, and that people uploading infringing videos may face problems as well.

From there, he went into the debate. In his typical satirical way, he introduces Zittrain by claiming he was here to "defend thieves & pirates," and asks him "why do you want artists to starve?" Zittrain did a great job:
"I want artists to thrive. The internet allows artists to find their audiences. When Justin Bieber started singing his favorite songs on YouTube, he got discovered because of the internet. And the odd thing is, under this law, SOPA, the behavior of Justin Bieber, singing his favorite songs, without authorization, over the internet, could make him a felon, in jail for three years."
It's actually five, but close enough. Goldberg, of course, says this is all an exaggeration, and then claims (incorrectly) that the bill only targets foreign sites. Zittrain did note that there were different parts of the bill (but leaves out that many of them target US companies), but then makes the second key point, about how this law uses the same mechanism that China & Iran use to censor the internet there. To which Colbert replies: "I don't know about Iran, but China is kicking our ass in business right now. Wouldn't it be good for American business? Because if we shut down parts of the internet, won't people at work actually do the work they were hired for?"

Goldberg continues to play the "but something must be done" line, leading Colbert to make his alternative proposal: "What if the artist gets something from the company stealing from them? An eye for an iPod?" to which Goldberg says "it's a good line, but..." and Colbert points out, "it's an excellent line, not a good line" and then threatens to sue anyone who "steals" it.

Wasn't expecting much for an under 5 minute interview, but overall Zittrain did a great job, and got in a few key points. The Bieber point is a little exaggerated, because Bieber would have to do a few more things (such as embedding the videos on his own site), but the overall point he's getting at is clear: the bill is overreaching and will harm legitimate activities which artists rely on today.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2011 @ 3:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.

    No there are still severe side effects to copyright.

    As seen in this very forum artists believe that they own earnings from the hard work of others, that can't be right.

    A DJ playing music outside of a store to attract customers should not give others who don't stand outside that store or business doing the work any money, do artists have to pay the manufacturers of their instruments for commercial use of those?

    Nope so why is that they get that kind of benefit from copyright? They shouldn't it is ridiculous, at best the DJ should have a copy of the original work an in that work all the rights to use should already be given, just like any other product on the market, Ford can go collecting royalties for the cars they sell no matter what they are used for, artists should benefit from their direct work not from tertiary work that is done by others for which they do no work at all.

    Copyright is also to long life + 95 years is not an incentive to produce more is a disincentive to stop working, not to mention the tremendous harm that any monopoly does to any market, the US fought a war because of those things(i.e. Independence War) and suddenly is all back again?

    Collection agencies and levies should all be abolished or merged into one single easy way to acquire all of that stuff they call "licenses" the "licenses" should be incorporated into the embodiment of the work, once that is acquired the owner of that object just need to show it to show it does have the rights to perform it for commercial purposes or not, the function of "music writer" should go extinct since writing music is not the whole process, I doubt people would be happy with people who don't do the whole work but have the power to extract money from them, like some guy that manufacturer wheels and can ask from everyone else that they pay him for installing or removing those wheels from a car that is just absurd.

    Further I don't see how copyright even needs to exist, it doesn't for a lot of industries and they are just fine, in this day and age where you don't need that much to publish anything the barriers to entry and be part of the market are gone, once powerful institutions tremble in fear against kids in their dorm rooms, that should be a clear sign that there is no need for "protections" anymore that market is mature and any participant can fend for himself already, we should reward excellence not mediocrity and if somebody can't make a living on a market that is ripe where he is in equals terms no matter if he is big or small that person probably won't be able to make a living anywhere with anything.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
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.