MPAA Tries Its Hand At Comedy With A Top 10 List In Favor Of Censoring The Internet

from the want-to-try-that-again dept

The MPAA has been sending around a sort of "top 10 list" to folks in Congress about why they should vote to censor the internet via PROTECT IP (PIPA). It's actually two different top five lists. The first is five reasons to vote for the law. The second is five reasons that "Google" is wrong about the law (as if Google is the only one complaining about the law -- which is pure hogwash). Of course, the ten reasons don't make much sense, and we figured that it might be helpful to shine a little of that reality light on the claims:
The PROTECT IP Act will preserve American jobs and encourage economic growth.
Internet piracy and counterfeiting puts millions of American jobs at risk. More than 10.6 million Americans depend on the copyright industries for their jobs. That’s about 1 in 10 private sector jobs in the U.S. And about 2.2 million Americans depend on the film and television industries for their jobs. Many of these Americans work behind the scenes in good paying middle class jobs.
Misleading in the extreme. First of all, as we've explained at great length over and over again in the past, "the copyright industries" (a made up term by the folks who support more draconian copyright legislation) does not mean that these people rely on copyright itself. Much of those jobs would exist with or without copyright. The myth here is that, but for copyright, those jobs wouldn't exist. Yet that's ridiculous. It assumes, a priori, that without copyright there would be no content creation at all. That's completely ridiculous. In fact, as we've seen, as copyright has been ignored, it's actually resulted in much greater output, and the size of these copyright industries has continued to grow and has outpaced the rest of the economy. Furthermore, using the exact same methodology as "the copyright industries," it actually can be shown that it's exceptions to copyright law that create even more jobs -- and thus the conclusion might be that copyright law should be weaker, not stronger.
Internet piracy and counterfeiting is a danger to consumers and national security.
Many websites dedicated to piracy and counterfeiting appear to be legitimate. Consumers looking for prescription drugs online have unknowingly purchased counterfeit goods such as tainted medicine. And the defense industry is very susceptible to counterfeit parts because many defense systems rely on electronic parts that are no longer produced by the original manufacturer. An Armed Services Committee investigation has found over 1 million suspect counterfeit electronic parts that were purchased for the defense supply chain.
Ah, the massive bogus conflation argument again. First of all, if counterfeit drugs are really a problem (and the data suggests that it's a very small problem), then craft legislation that targets just that. Don't lump it in with tons of other stuff that are not a danger to consumers. Ditto for military equipment. First of all, why is our military buying parts from "rogue sites"? Last I checked, the military, as a part of the government, had to buy from providers with a GSA contract, which are not easy to get. If somehow folks are buying around that, then that's an issue and let's deal with that. But lumping both of those, very narrow, and very limited, problems in with the much wider, but totally unrelated, issue of infringement online is dishonest and dangerous.
Internet piracy and counterfeiting funds organized crime networks.
Many organized crime networks engage in Internet piracy and counterfeiting. They often use the profits from this activity to fund other criminal enterprises that are violent and dangerous.
Bullshit. Seriously. This one is total bullshit. The argument has been entirely discredited based on a recent comprehensive study of the issue. From that SSRC report
Arguing that piracy is integral to [organized crime & terrorist] networks means ignoring the dramatic changes in the technology and organizational structure of the pirate market over the past decade. By necessity, evidentiary standards become very loose. Decades-old stories are recycled as proof of contemporary terrorist connections, anecdotes stand in as evidence of wider systemic linkages, and the threshold for what counts as organized crime is set very low. The RAND study, which reprises and builds on earlier IFPI and Interpol reporting, is constructed almost entirely around such practices. Prominent stories about IRA involvement in movie piracy and Hezbollah involvement in DVD and software piracy date, respectively, to the 1980s and 1990s. Street vendor networks in Mexico City--a subject we treat at length in the Mexico chapter--are mischaracterized as criminal gangs connected with the drug trade. Piracy in Russia is attributed to criminal mafias rather than to the chronically porous boundary between licit and illicit enterprise. The Pakistani criminal gang D-Company, far from "forging a clear pirate monopoly" in Bollywood, in RAND's words, plays a small and diminishing part in Indian DVD piracy--its smuggling networks dwarfed by local production.

The US record isn't more convincing in this regard. Jeffrey McIllwain examined the Department of Justice’s IP-related prosecutions between 2000 and 2004 and found that only 49 out of the 105 cases alleged that the defendant operated within larger, organized networks. Nearly all of these were "warez" distribution groups for pirated software--hacker communities that are explicitly and often fiercely non-commercial in orientation. McIllwain found "no overt references to professional organized crime groups" in any of the DOJ's criminal charges (McIllwain 2005:27). If organized crime is a serious problem in these contexts, it should not be difficult to produce a stronger evidentiary record.
But the MPAA fact sheet does not provide a stronger evidentiary record. It just repeats the bullshit.
Copyright protection encourages innovation and free speech.
Copyright protection laws have helped create the Internet of today, alive with free speech, innovation and commerce. Copyright laws in the U.S. uphold free speech while encouraging innovation by giving an economic incentive for artists and investors to create new content and distribute it on the Internet. And noted First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams has concluded that the PROTECT IP Act protects free speech.
Copyright protection, when done carefully may encourage free speech. When done wrong, it clearly limits and inhibits free speech. This is not a debate. Even the courts admit that copyright done wrong can and does inhibit free speech. That is our concern here. PROTECT IP is copyright done wrong. Floyd Abrams was hired by the MPAA to support PROTECT IP. Yet, well over 100 legal scholars, including constitutional experts like Laurence Tribe have said that it violates the First Amendment. The MPAA has yet to turn up anyone other than Floyd Abrams. And, even Abrams admits that these laws would censor protected speech -- he just doesn't think it's to the level that it's a problem.
The PROTECT IP Act provides needed tools to target criminals beyond the reach of current laws.
Foreign websites that traffic in counterfeit goods and stolen content are violating copyright protection but are often beyond the reach of our current laws. The PROTECT IP Act targets criminal behavior. Everyone engaged in legal commerce on the Internet should welcome this legislation.
There are other, better, ways to deal with the narrow issue of sites that are outside of our laws. The Wyden/Issa proposal, for example, narrowly targets that specific problem without all of the collateral damage.

Next up, are the anti-Google points, which repeat much of the above, but with a special anti-Google spin:
Google claims the PROTECT IP Act “threatens the ability for free speech.” Copyright law has promoted free speech on the Internet.
The PROTECT IP Act, like content protection law before it, promotes free speech. Content protection law has given us the Internet today, alive with free speech, commerce, and innovation. In fact, noted First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams stated that the PROTECT IP Act upholds our First Amendment Rights. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written, “The State Department is strongly committed to advancing both Internet freedom and the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights on the Internet. Indeed, these two priorities are consistent.”
See above for the Floyd Abrams crap. As for Clinton, she commented on copyright law in general, not the specific proposals under way. The two priorities can be consistent, but they can also be opposing. In fact, we've heard directly from multiple people within the State Department that they're very much opposed to these bills, and that they will undermine their internet freedom arguments.
Google claims that the PROTECT IP Act will be a burden to taxpayers. Criminals involved in Internet piracy do not pay taxes and the PROTECT IP Act will preserve American jobs.
Criminals who profit from piracy do not pay taxes. Internet piracy and counterfeiting puts millions of American jobs at risk. More than 10.6 million Americans depend on the copyright industries for their jobs. That’s about 1 in 10 private sector jobs in the U.S. And about 2.2 million Americans depend on the film and television industries for their jobs. Many of these Americans work behind the scenes in good paying middle class jobs.
Totally misleading. We already debunked the bogus jobs claim above, but more importantly, which sector of the economy has actually been creating new jobs these days? Tech. Facebook alone has created somewhere around a quarter of a million jobs itself, not by hiring, but through the companies that built off its platform. eBay has enabled over 750,000 small businesses to be built on its platform. Those people pay lots of taxes. Taking away and limiting the ability of the next generation of platforms to enable these new businesses and new jobs will significantly impact economic growth and taxes.
Google claims that the bill “is a trial lawyers dream.” The PROTECT IP Act is a nightmare for criminals.
The PROTECT IP Act provides needed tools to go after criminals beyond the reach of our current laws. It targets criminals who profit from trafficking in counterfeit goods and stolen content. Many organized crime networks make millions of dollars from Internet piracy and counterfeiting.
The bill is a nightmare for the entire internet. Its broad definitions mean that it will target significantly more than just the "worst of the worst." And when people tried to narrow the definition, the MPAA threw a hissy fit. That's because this isn't about going after the really bad actors. This is about the MPAA being unable to adapt and wishing to control new legitimate platforms as well.
Google claims the PROTECT IP Act “seeks to regulate the Internet.” The bill penalizes activity that is already criminal but beyond the reach of our current laws.
Foreign websites that traffic in counterfeit goods and stolen content are violating copyright protection but are often beyond the reach of our current laws. The PROTECT IP Act targets criminal behavior. Everyone engage in legal commerce on the Internet should welcome this legislation.
This is especially disingenuous. The bill works by putting massive compliance costs on tons of internet companies. Creating a startup is going to involve a huge legal budget. The fact that PROTECT IP only "targets" foreign sites, ignores that the mechanism for such "targets" is to use internet companies as cannon fodder. That's a problem.
Google claims the PROTECT IP Act is “a threat to our national security.” Site blocking techniques are already in use and the Senate Armed Services Committee has shown that counterfeiting is a threat to our national security.
Site blocking techniques are not new. They are currently used to combat all kinds of harmful behavior including spam, phishing, malware, viruses, and other forms of Internet crime, all without claims of Internet censorship or harm to the Internet. And, the defense industry is very susceptible to counterfeit parts because many defense systems rely on electronic parts that are no longer produced by the original manufacturer. An Armed Services Committee investigation has found over 1 million suspect counterfeit electronic parts that were purchased for the defense supply chain.
This is the craziest claim of all. Look at all of the credible people who have pointed out that PROTECT IP's DNS blocking will be a threat to national security. This includes Stewart Baker, the former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary and former NSA General Counsel. It includes Sandia National Labs, which is an expert in computer security issues, and it includes the freaking people who more or less built the DNS system. In all this time the MPAA has never brought out any expert who can argue to the contrary. The best it's done is have a guy from Hollywood claim he "doesn't agree" with these assessments.

The MPAA's arguments here are dishonest, disingenuous and downright dangerous. Because they don't want to adapt to a changing market, they've decided that collateral damage to security, the economy and innovation are no big deal. Hopefully those in Congress are able to see through the facade.

Filed Under: censorship, congress, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: mpaa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 3:31pm

    Re: You haven't explained what could replace copyright.

    "It's inarguable that YOU don't have the right to publicly distribute content that someone else has made. Inarguable. "

    Yes it is.

    I DO have the right to publicly distribute "content" that is covered both by copyright and the applicable Creative Commons License.

    I do have the right to publicly distribute open source documentation , all covered by copyright and the applicable license.

    I do have the right to publicly distribute source code for open source software, covered by copyright and, more often than than not covered by the GPL, Apache Public License, the BSD License among others,

    Furthermore I'm allowed, indeed encouraged in some cases to modify said content as I please and distribute THAT too.

    Even by the MPAA/RIAA's narrow definition of distribute. Oh, and by the way, if I make a copy of a DVD I'm as guilty of infringement as if I put it up on, say (only because they're the eternal whipping boy and what would the MPAA/RIAA do without them!), TBP and subject to the same penalties.

    I do have the right to copy material if the use is applicable under fair use/fair dealing and, at times, have been encouraged to do that to, mostly in the writing of academic papers where I can freely quote large expanses of material covered by copyright and cite it later.

    So it comes to pass that that your undeniable point (notice the proper English usage and spelling there?) is very deniable on any number of points.

    "Mike's movie example in the "can't compete" piece where he disappears $100M "sunk (or fixed) costs" is EXACTLY the case for links sites and files hosts. Mike POSITS "FREE" PRODUCT so that he can then claim that only marginal costs matter. My analysis can be contradicted but never rebutted, because any honest evaluation inevitably leads to: his example works only by ignoring how the movie came to exist, otherwise he has to worry about repaying costs."

    Oh, heck, your unmade and never will be made $100 million movie again. That HAD to come up sooner or later, didn't it? One point before I go on is that no investor in his or her right mind will invest $100 million in a movie proposed by a total unknown who has probably never shot a video on anything more complicated that his smart phone before but thinks he has an idea. Not gonna happen ever, not now, not in the past, not in the future WHETHER OR NOT copyright exists.

    As for the responsibility for recovery of your theoretical costs (and until you spend it they are theoretical), fixed, sunk, wasted, drugged or drank away or otherwise if you're the producer that's YOUR job, not Mike's mot mine, not anyone else's. Get that into your THICK HEAD!

    Now that I've cleared that away. Not to your liking because you're quite unimaginative and don't really want to think about things like that cause you seem to think you ought to be able to make your silly movie and expect to sit back and watch the money roll in. Doesn't work that way, never has, never will and free distribution (which is really what we're arguing about here) makes absolutely no difference. Make a crappy movie, blue, and you're gonna end up owing someone $100 million plus interest.

    "It's no coincidence that "can't compete with free" is what exists with rampant piracy"

    One more time PROVE that so called piracy leads to losses of sales in recordings or videos. As you consider it criminal I'll hold you to the test for a criminal conviction which is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and please note that "cause the MPAA/RIAA say so" or because "It has to!!!" The first isn't acceptable evidence it's called hearsay. The second is an opinion and isn't evidence either. As neither you nor the entertainment industry seem to want to accept that challenge I have to conclude you have no evidence other that falling back on "it has to be". On the other hand reputable studies tend, overwhelmingly, to conclude the polar opposite. Their methods can be repeated by another researcher and run again to see if the results are the same. They always are.

    What the entertainment industry claims is that they won't go into methodology due either to contract arrangements or, making the worst argument under the sun "it's a trade secret!"

    Regarding Rapidshare, I know this will disappoint you but a great deal of what they host there is original work. And so what that they charge for a premium download? If I want "pirated" work I know a few thousand places that don't. And Rapidshare does remove infringing content when notified. So much for that nonsense.

    Regarding advertising, what neither you nor the entertainment industry seem to grasp is that advertising appearing on a site is, most often, a cost item not a revenue generator. Do you have one iota of an idea how many click throughs it takes before you even begin to get revenue for Google Ads or any other ad server? Didn't think so. It sure as hell isn't going to pay the costs of hosting petabytes of content.

    As for what Grooveshark did or didn't do I don't give a damn. If that's the best argument you can come up with you still don't pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" test.

    As most of your point by point arguments make about as much sense as plunging my head into rapidly boiling water I'll select some of the "better" ones, at least in terms of comedy.
    ) studios need to "connect with fans" instead of worry about people getting the content without paying -- as if that isn't THE ESSENTIAL connection!
    Actually studios need to "connect with fans" regardless. One of the reasons for this is that they haven't, they've become far less creative and far less compelling and this didn't just start with the advent of widespread internet access. It started long before when, oh, let's say studios got the idea that doing two hour remakes of marginal TV shows such as Wild, Wild West which ended up not looking like the original at all which alienated the cult audience who didn't troop off to see it.
    (Meanwhile midnight showings of a movie widely considered to be one of the worst ever made -- Attack of the Killer Tomatoes --- continue to pack em into otherwise mostly empty multiplexes. A movie that's made it's backers rich simply through being horrible and rediscovered 20 years later where we could appreciate just how delightfully horrible.)
    One way or another if you have an entertainment product you have to connect with fans. If you don't they aren't interested, copyright or not. If you do they come and will pay for it copyright or not. A few thousand years of no copyright has proven the latter point irrefutably. 400 or so years OF copyright has proven the former. Is there something there that you can't get???????

    ) technology marches on and piracy can't be stopped
    Willful blindness on your part if you want to think differently. But by all means carry on. I'm not agreeing with that statement because I want copyright to cease to exist, far from it. I'm saying that because I'm a realist. (and a tech nerd, I'm guilty of that which I'm sure blackens my name with you but I consider that a gold star.)

    ) give away and pray is a valid business model
    NO ONE has said that. The closest it comes is give away and WORK is a valid business model. But then, even if you have a copyright it's still sell and WORK is a valid business model. A certain amount of prayer is needed either way. I suspect it's the WORK part that you don't want to have to do.

    ) DNS blocking won't work at all -- OR, at times contradictorily in the same piece: DNS blocking WILL censor large swathes of the Internet

    If you knew anything, anything at all about the architecture of the Internet you'd know those aren't contradictory arguments they're factual statements. If you want tutoring on that kind of thing I'm available. $200/hr.
    And no copyright hassles cause my out of class materials are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution License which essentially means "fill you boots, do what you want with this just make sure I get credit for my part somewhere here."

    ) enforcing copyright with SOPA will stifle what Mike inventively terms the "innovation industry" -- whatever called, it's definitely NOT a productive part of society, relies on being in middle to re-distribute

    If you mean tech industry which is what Mike was referring to I suggest you go back to grade 3 and learn what the word "productive" means. Your car runs the way it does because of the tech industry. You have your desktop, laptop, smartphone because of the tech industry, how phone calls are processed is because of the tech industry, you get to use ATMs and card swipes because of the tech industry, your shiny new LCD or LED tv is because of the tech industry, aircraft navigate using the products of the tech industry, airports can be as busy a they are without 747s having head on collisions in the sky because of the air traffic control systems which, in part or whole is because of the tech industry, weaponry is as accurate as it is now BECAUSE of the tech industry, your gas mileage in a vehicle is at levels considered impossible even 15 years ago BECAUSE of the tech industry and on it goes. Oh, and operations that were impossible or almost 100% deadly 25 years ago are routine now largely because of advances in the tech industry.

    If all that isn't productive output I have no idea what is.

    And should you think the entertainment industry is the only place that relies on respect for copyright for its existence it's the tech industry. Just look up how fiercely one company has fought another over copyright issues, how often people have been reminded of it in the tech industry all the way back to Bill Gates warning people about MS's copyright on it's version of BASIC back in the 1970s. Or look at Lotus v. Borland, an action that pretty much killed both of them and let MS walk right up the middle in office and productivity software or, more infamously SCO vs IBM et al. Compared to the tech industry the entertainment industry is a local bike club trying to go up against the Hell's Angels. (BTW, even MS has learned the need to "reach out to fans") It's hard in the extreme to think of anything the entertainment industry has done since the day I was born that is anything close to as productive as the tech industry have been since even 2000.
    ) Big Media is propping up "outdated" business models ...but WE have NO idea where those files come from or how they got on our computers...WE have NO duty to be moral and not STEAL work-products or even slightly reward whoever made them (because morality is outdated too: about its only mention on Techdirt is in the phrase "moral panics"); a fundamental but thoroughly pernicious theme is that pirating ... (..."sharing"), and ... moral because approved by self-interest (they even embrace "pirate" as if a positive term)

    Show me where Big Media isn't trying to prop up an outdated business model, that is until they've been dragged, kicking and screaming into a newer one. Let me see now, consumer open reel tape recorders were going to be the end for music, later cassette tapes were going to be the end for music, then CDs were going to be the end for music, then mp3 were somehow supposed to kill it off, DVDs were going to kill off movies, somehow. Recordable or tradeable media were always going to kill something or other off.

    Except....they didn't. Music sales exploded from the 1950s until the early 1980s before the anyone had a home internet connection and then they began a slow decline. As much as after punk and new wave were done Boomers lost interest in the corporate pablum being fed to us (not reaching out to fans). Sure country took off mostly based on county-rock acts of the 1970s but that was about it. Rap and hip-hop took off among the echo/millennium kids but they lack the numbers of we Boomers because, contrary to expectations, we didn't breed all that much.

    Of course, we Boomers have heard this "death of Hollyood" crud since we could remember, the first time I actually remember hearing it is when NBC started to broadcast colour TV shows. Mostly movies at the start, ironically. Apparently they were screaming blue murder when TV first appeared but you'd have to ask people older than me about that. Radio was supposed to kill off the record industry and music industry too after live performances left radio and radio started to play music. But they both continued to thrive. Then came cassettes, then came recordable CDs, then came recordable DVDs, then came dial up Internet, then came high speed Internet and one advance after the other RIAA and MPAA member companies howled at the top of their lungs that it was going to kill their industry. I've been hearing it for 60 some odd years, whether or not I can remember it. Yet they're still here.

    After 60 years of crying "wolf" you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe them now. And if I don't believe their self-serving propaganda about this being a respect for copyright issue ( and your even less coherent copying of that, or should I say plagiarism of that howling, speaking of "theft".)

    ) Mike doesn't want to do away with RIAA / MPAA; he isn't against them AT ALL, only wants to show them how to increase their income...

    Mike may not want to see them disappear. Personally I'd not cry a tear if they did. The sooner the better, IMHO.

    Then the cry about Mike showing them a better way. And back we come to that tired argument. As for the RIAA and the MPAA they KNOW the better way but they don't want to do that because it means relinquishing control over a carefully constructed distribution and release channel that profits only them, not the creators, not the artists, just them. And the book publishers are more than happy to jump onto that wagon. They've been dragged kicking and screaming into dipping their big toe in it. iTunes and Amazon for example. But they still don't want to go there because this time out they're the minnows and iTunes and Amazon are part of the Orca pod with Microsoft swimming into site to join them.

    "copyright IS an artificial restriction precisely because COPYING HAS ALWAYS BEEN FAIRLY EASY -- COMPARED TO producing and promoting new and attractive material from scratch." While I'm glad you admit the first part of that while I partially agree with the second part.

    First I hardly see Middle Ages monks blinding and crippling themselves faithfully, word for word, spelling mistake by spelling mistake copying scrolls as easy. Fairly or otherwise.

    And yes, the act of creating a story, novel, poem, play or screenplay is harder than mere copying particularly after the moveable type press appeared in Europe. But that doesn't change much. Somehow Shakespeare managed to own a theatre, write plays and sonnets and live extremely comfortably for the time without copyright. And this at a time when the critics of theatre, the audience, saw nothing at all wrong with maiming or murdering an actor or playwright who didn't please them. So let me suggest to you that he worked is ASS off even if Bacon wrote the majority of his works...he was still the front man for that little scam.

    All that said if copyright sticks to it's orgininal purpose of promoting "education" and protecting publishers from themselves by 3 or 4 of them issuing the same title at the same time, one of whom MIGHT have given the author something, and then guaranteed the creator payment free from creative accounting I'd have no problem with it. One thing it was NOT designed to become was a welfare program for the MPAA, RIAA or, if and when it comes to that, authors and their families.
    The social impact of a culture behind the walled, armed and protected walls of the MPAA/RIAA/Pubishers and blue's garden are incalculable in the long term.

    All this to protect, ahh, lemme see now, approximately 0.88% of the American work force. Far, far less than work in, say, the tech industry. And a collection of industries that, in a good year, contribute 0.1% of American GDP (aka wealth).

    I gotta ask if it's worth it. Not copyright as a concept which, in it's original intent, I fully support. But this application of it which I do not.

    You end with the following:
    "hey're (sp) better off NOT wasting time here, just going out and DOING."
    Strikes me that with all your whining about your still unmade movie that allegedly will cost $100 million to make and that no one will invest only because of piracy and that you're a total unknown. The latter is more probably true

    The doing part is downright laughable. I see nothing in all your whining and complaining that indicates you have the faintest idea of what work is. Entitlement for sure but work, no. More an unwillingness to work. Hint, if you make your blasted movie, copyright or not you're still going to have to promote it, sell it, "connect with fans", perhaps even sell Chinese made t-shirts (Canadian made ones are cheaper and of far better quality I should add, as I suspect are American ones, too if you'd just bother to look), do tours, do interviews with brain dead journalists seconded from the sports desk and all that boring stuff.

    Even more I'm willing to bet you've never sat down, written so much as a chapter of fiction, criticism, analysis or explanation of anything much less a movie. I've written lots of all of that but fiction and got great pleasure and sense of accomplishment from all of it and made not so much as a penny on it. That's not why I do it. I do it because I like to. No I love to. And yes, all my work is copyright along with my dandy little Creative Commons License as I believe that it's immoral for me as a Christian (Anglican) to wall in discussion of my faith in case someone just might want to copyright it. Copying seemed ok with Jesus, it was definitely alright with Paul so it's cool with me. As long as I get credit where credit is due. I wrote it.

    Not only that I learn from my research and analysis about my faith, the world around me and I learn about me, the person I often find I know less about than anyone else.

    Whether or not you want to believe it -- that's what motivates creative people. Just the urge to create, to put something where a nothing has been before, to scratch an itch and make something work where it didn't before. The urge to create, to make something better. Even if that something is me. (And you have no idea what hard work is until you give yourself that task.)

    It was that before copyright (or patents) existed. It will be that way long after copyright (or patents) have ceased to exist for whatever reason.

    I'm not confident that either has much of a future as they've been corrupted far beyond their original uses. So much so that they would be unrecognizable to those who first proposed them. Still, they're recoverable because the rot hasn't set in too far.

    Sadly, blue, there are people like you around who are determined that the rot set in and then determined to corrupt it further so the rot becomes toxic and fatal.

    I'm not sure that you're willfully ignorant, just plain old uniformed ignorant, just someone who automatically believes what "authority tells them", a combination of it all or intellectually dishonest as well as the above.

    Or that you get paid by the people you shill for.
    I doubt the last because you're the last person on earth I'd pay to propagandize on my behalf.

    As far as creativity goes one thing I do know is that you're LAZY. No wonder you don't know what work is. You'd rather cut and paste. It may not be piracy, it's plagiarism. And you do it horribly.

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: Techdirt Logo Gear
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.