Politics

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
chris dodd, internet freedom, republicans

Companies:
mpaa



Want To Know How Weak The GOP's Internet Freedom Platform Is? The MPAA Loves It

from the which-means-it's-not-at-all-about-internet-freedom dept

We were already skeptical of the GOP's claims about supporting "internet freedom," and it seems that our concerns have been more or less confirmed by the fact that the MPAA seems positively thrilled by the GOP's official position on internet freedom. If the MPAA is pleased with someone's policy outline for the internet, you can bet that it's bad policy. Here's what Chris Dodd had to say:
The Republican Party platform language strikes a very smart balance: it emphasizes the importance of us doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting internet freedom. As the party points out, the internet has been for its entire existence a source of innovation, and it is intellectual property that helps drive that innovation. Copyright is the cornerstone of innovation; it allows creators to benefit from what they create. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- herself once a Republican elected official -- wrote, '[I]t should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.'

I agree wholeheartedly with my friends in the Republican Party that we must protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting American innovators. It is imperative to our national economy and our national identity that we protect an internet that works for everyone.
As he is prone to doing, Dodd is presenting a very distorted version of history and intellectual property. There is no evidence (none, zip, zilch, zero) that "intellectual property helps drive innovation." Historically, it's been shown that competition and need is what drives innovation -- whereas intellectual property laws tend to lock in place legacy players, holding back disruptive innovation. Either way, the MPAA's support pretty much shows that the Republican's "internet freedom" platform isn't serious.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Tim K (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 8:42am

    Who needs facts anyways?

    doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft

    We don't have to worry about IP theft there is no such thing...

    Copyright is the cornerstone of innovation

    Cause again, everyone knows before copyright there was no innovation, just like there was no authors or fans either

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

    • icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:04am

      Re: Who needs facts anyways?

      I dunno, certainly seems like forgoing prior art, allowing Apple to own things they didn't come up with and depriving others the use of them sure seems like Intellectual Property theft.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 6:07pm

        Re: Re: Who needs facts anyways?

        No, it's just anti-competition motivated abuse of the legal system (in my opinion).

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

    • icon
      gorehound (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 12:16pm

      Re: Who needs facts anyways?

      Chris Dodd is a piece of shit.Democrats also want to screw us when it comes to the Internet.Equal Opportunity Greedsters.
      Boycott the MAFIAA
      Support INDIE Art.

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

      • identicon
        Loki, 30 Aug 2012 @ 2:01pm

        Re: Re: Who needs facts anyways?

        Personally I didn't bother reading anything Dodd had to say. The only useful data to be taken away from his comments is the knowledge that a staunch "democrat" supporting part of a "republican" agenda simply shows how interchangeable the two parties have really become.

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

  • icon
    Lowestofthekeys (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:45am

    Doesn't Dodd know that every time he bullshits, his chin recedes a little?

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:46am

    And while it is problematic and weak in theory, the alternative (Obama) is problematic and weak in practice. Oh how the Americans are screwed...

    I can't say much, it's the municipal elections here and not a single candidate that has any chance of winning is a good choice. And we got at least 5 candidates that have some expressive electorate. Imagine with 2 and with both being complete and utter shit?

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am

    Mike Masnick just hates it when intellectual property laws are supported.

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

    • icon
      Tim K (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am

      Re:

      FTFY:
      Mike Masnick just hates it when bad intellectual property laws are supported.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:49am

        Re: Re:

        FT-FTFY:
        Mike Masnick just hates it when ANY intellectual property laws are supported.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:57am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm sure if some good ones showed up, he'd be all for them. Problem is, Hollywood can't write good ones.

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

          • identicon
            JEDIDIAH, 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:19am

            Cue the comparisons...

            Hollywood can't help molesting and corrupting a good copyright law.

            Take out the term extensions and the heavy fine for small scale copyists and remove the restrictions on cracking and THEN you've got something balanced.

            That would be the copyright of my youth.

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

            • identicon
              MrWilson, 30 Aug 2012 @ 12:15pm

              Re: Cue the comparisons...

              Heck, sound recordings and movies weren't originally covered under copyright either. At this point, I'd settle for returning to the original Copyright Act of 1790. 14 years plus 14 on renewal.

              I'll start worrying about protecting the "property"/monopolies of wealthy corporations as soon as we solve society's real problems like inequality in education, employment, and healthcare.

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

        • icon
          Lowestofthekeys (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          FT-FT-FTFY:

          I wish they'd make a Mike Masnick Tiger Beat poster.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:49am

      Re:

      Anonymous Coward just hates it when people question the motives of those trying to enact laws with little or no ACTUAL facts/evidence to support them.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:55am

        Re: Re:

        "Anonymous Coward just hates it when people question the motives of those trying to enact laws with little or no ACTUAL facts/evidence to support them."

        yes, especially when the opposition to those laws is almost entirely all "faith based" with little in the way of real world consideration taken into account.

        Let's trash copyright, patents, and trademarks while we are at it, and then let's see what happens. This is the faith based approach at it's finest.

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

        • icon
          :Lobo Santo (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:57am

          Re: Re: Re: Perfect prefect!!

          Sounds like AC and AC are in agreement--we need evidence based law-making, pure and simple.

          Let's just stop passing laws without adequate scientific evidence as to the net benefit to society.

          I'm glad we've come to an agreement.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Let's trash copyright, patents, and trademarks while we are at it

          Honestly, why not? Do a hard-reset on intellectual property, and as problems crop up we can fix them in a reasoned way, in the context of the world today as opposed to the world 80-200 years ago.

          (The exception might be Trademark, which is a consumer protection not intellectual property, but I'm not convinced we even need that.)

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Honestly, why not? Do a hard-reset on intellectual property, and as problems crop up we can fix them in a reasoned way, in the context of the world today as opposed to the world 80-200 years ago."

            People are still quoting Ben Franklin around here to justify mouthing off to the cops. There's no money in that one.

            A "hard reset" as you call it would mean killing industries generating billions to the curb, hoping like hell we make it up somewhere else. Just doing that is entirely faith based, and therefore not a very good move.

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

            • icon
              silverscarcat (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "People are still quoting Ben Franklin around here to justify mouthing off to the cops. There's no money in that one."

              Why shouldn't we quote someone who's a lot smarter than any cop could ever hope to be?

              "A "hard reset" as you call it would mean killing industries generating billions to the curb"

              What industries?

              The Tech industry (which DOES generate billions and new jobs) would prosper.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2012 @ 7:31am

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

                "The Tech industry (which DOES generate billions and new jobs) would prosper."

                No, YOU THINK that would happen. There is no proof it would. It's equally likely that they stop major innovations altogether (why invest in what will be stolen 10 minutes later) and instead we get stuck near or around the current technology levels, very slowly plodding forward as someone makes a 0.00001% incremental improvement, probably by accident.

                See, you don't know, and I don't know either. Your assertion that X or Y would happen is "faith based" with absolutely no basis in fact.

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

            • identicon
              JEDIDAH, 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:22am

              The Franklin Principle

              OK then.

              Reset copyright and Patents to 1790 or so.

              That's perfectly "safe" despite all of your crocodile tears. Genuine innovation would be protected. Creativity would be encouraged.

              The fiefdoms of Disney and Apple might be at risk. However that is not such a bad thing.

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

            • identicon
              dennis deems, 30 Aug 2012 @ 12:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I think you meant to write "kicking industries generating billions to the curb". "Kick to the curb" is a well-known metaphorical idiom. If there are really people saying "kill to the curb" they are confusedly mixing metaphors.

              Any industry that "generates" billions simply by virtue of the concept of intellectual property -- that is to say, that could not survive absent that poisonous concept -- deserves to die.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 1:10pm

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

                Why?

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2012 @ 7:34am

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

                "Any industry that "generates" billions simply by virtue of the concept of intellectual property -- that is to say, that could not survive absent that poisonous concept -- deserves to die."

                Example, let's look at movies.

                How many billions of dollars of ticket sales? What happens if the moment a new movie is released, it becomes public domain and any and every movie house who wants it can play it for any price, without paying for the content?

                How many minutes do you think the movie industry would last after that?

                (Oh, and for the nit pickers in the audience, yes, some people would still be making movies. But even the business models for indie films would be ruined, effectively leaving us with hobby films).

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2012 @ 12:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              If said industries are generating billions why the fuck are we paying for laws to protect them on the faith-based claim that they're all dying?

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

        • icon
          SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          the support to those laws is almost entirely all "faith based" with little in the way of real world consideration taken into account.

          FTFY

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

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Let's trash copyright, patents, and trademarks while we are at it, and then let's see what happens.


          Let's get real for a second. While many commenters here advocate eliminating these laws altogether, I don't think that's the majority opinion. The majority opinion appears to be that these laws have become too oppressive and deviated too far from their original purpose. As such, they should be reformed (made closer to what they used to be). Reformed is not the same as trashed.

          I'm in the reform camp, personally. I think these laws, properly written, can be a great benefit to society. That said, I do not think they're properly written right now, and if the choice is between the laws as they are now and no laws at all, less harm is done by having no laws at all.

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

          • identicon
            dennis deems, 30 Aug 2012 @ 12:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I think these laws, properly written, can be a great benefit to society.

            How so?

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

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 1:06pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              With copyright, by ensuring that works unambiguously enter the public domain and become available for the use of everybody.

              With patents, by discouraging people and companies form keeping their inventions a secret, thus encouraging the distribution of new discoveries.

              With trademarks, by preventing companies from intentionally tricking consumers into buying one thing when they intended to buy something else.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What's faith based about the assertion that if we don't pass a law that abridges our rights we'll have fewer abridged rights?

          What's faith based about the assertion that a proposed law with no factual support for its purpose has no factual support for its purpose?

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

      • identicon
        Jason, 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:20am

        fun with antecedents!!

        So, you're totally all for those trying to enact laws with little or no ACTUAL facts/evidence to support them?

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

    • icon
      weneedhelp (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:05am

      Re:

      Well, well, pooey poo-face to you too.

      Idiot.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:51am

      Re:

      Keep fucking that chicken

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    bob, 30 Aug 2012 @ 9:50am

    Uh, creators are voters too

    It seems like you think "internet freedom" means the freedom to take anything you want, whenever you want. Others think "internet freedom" should mean the freedom to conduct business without being ripped off. I'm guessing the Republicans, the Democrats and most parts of the government like the second definition. Why? Because you can't tax piracy and the other "sharing" that this site continues to endorse.

    So it's not that the Republican version is "weak", it's just a different vision from your embrace of the freedom to be ripped off. Admit it. You're only concerned about the rights and freedom of Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. You could care less about the rights and freedom of the creators.

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

    • icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:07am

      Re: Uh, creators are voters too

      Very true, but lets vote with votes instead of dollars. Yeah?

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:15am

      Re: Uh, creators are voters too

      You forgot to mention paywalls.

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

      • icon
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:39am

        Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too

        I heard that if you say "paywall" 5 times in front of a mirror, bob appears and non-sensically relates whatever you're doing to supporting Big Search.

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:15am

      Re: Uh, creators are voters too

      It seems like you think "internet freedom" means the freedom to take anything you want


      You're making stuff up again.

      Others think "internet freedom" should mean the freedom to conduct business without being ripped off.


      And still others think that "internet freedom" is more than that. Freedom form being ripped off, yes indeed! But not just in the context of business.

      A 100% business-friendly internet would be one of the least free forms of internet I could imagine. It'd be, essentially, cable TV.

      I want an internet where I can communicate freely and without fear, where I am not punished for the actions of others, where I am not subjected to tracking or monitoring except when I consent to it, and where I don't have to worry about the capricious abuse of the legal system to restrict my legitimate freedoms and rights.

      If business can operate in that environment (and I know that it can), awesome! If business cannot, then business should go elsewhere.

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

      • icon
        Jeremy Lyman (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:25am

        Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too

        If they want a 100% business friendly Internet, they can go build their own. It'd be a ghost town, but it would be just what they want.

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

        • identicon
          Ruben, 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:05am

          Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too

          This raises an interesting point. If businesses think that this internet is such a terrible thing, then why don't they make a better one?

          Oh wait, I remember. They grew complacent and apathetic and as a result are inept and too blinded by hubris and their own delusions of grandeur to do anything of relevance.

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

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:25am

      Re: Uh, creators are voters too

      Bob, have you ever been right about anything ever? I imagine you walking down the street with your shoes on teh wrong feet, wearing a shirt for pants and vice versa, slamming into revolving doors going the wrong direction and then shaking your fists at these "turnwalls" that refuse to make you orgasm....

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:33am

      Re: Uh, creators are voters too

      You seem to have confused Big Content, an industry of middle men that force actual creators to give up copyrights on their creation as collateral on loans, with the creators themselves. When we talk about rights and freedom we're talking about for the largest group of creators: the 'consumers' who aren't part of 'Big' anything. Those are the people whose rights and freedoms need protecting from 'Big Search' AND 'Big Content.'

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

    • identicon
      Jason, 30 Aug 2012 @ 10:45am

      Re: Uh, creators are voters too

      Nobody's ripping you off. We're the ones getting ripped off. You're the pirate. YOU ARE THE PIRATE.

      See, the deal was you get copyrights, patents, etc, (in spite of the fact that those artificial rights infringe on my far more fundamental ,basic rights to freely copy, modify, and distribute whatever information I have lawful access to) IN EXCHANGE FOR promoting the progress.

      Well, the deal's off. No promoting the progress, no copyright. No promoting the progress, no patent.

      NO PP, NO IP! NO PP, NO IP!

      Pirate! Blackguard!

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

      • icon
        Jeremy Lyman (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:21am

        Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too

        NO PP, NO IP! NO PP, NO IP!

        I feel like I heard this through the bathroom door when my nephew was potty-training.

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

      • icon
        Jeremy Lyman (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 8:08pm

        Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too

        I didn't mean to detract from the gravity of your statement with a comedic riff. Big corporations are definitely pirating the pubic domain for private gain. I want to take your comment out behind the middle school and get it pregnant. Oh yeah.

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

        • icon
          Tim Griffiths (profile), 31 Aug 2012 @ 2:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too

          "Pirating the public domain for private gain"

          That's a hell of a sentence, I may pirate it off you for future debates. I honestly think this really needs to be more of a talking point, that the social contract on which modern copyrights are founded has been broken. By lobbying for extensions to copyright that have left us with a century that has a ghost town of public domain works.

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

    • icon
      silverscarcat (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:12am

      bob!

      Hey, bob, how ya doing? Snarling at the mouth again?

      Didn't we give you some rabies shots last time?

      No? Well, too bad, go to the vet and come back when you're calmed down, 'k? Thanks.

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

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:25am

      Artificial Rights expire.

      > It seems like you think "internet freedom" means the freedom to take anything you want, whenever you want.

      Yup. 28 years for art. 20 years for inventions.

      A good bit of my multimedia stockpile should be fair game for sharing. This goes triple for works where all of the relevant artists are DEAD already.

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

    • identicon
      Nom, 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:38am

      Re: Uh, creators are voters too

      You know, your first paragraph was decent. Not to say I agree with it completely, but you presented what I would consider a valid argument.

      And then I read your second paragraph, and did a spit take. Went from being reasonable to potentially retarded rather quickly.

      Sorry about calling your potentially retarded, I really could not think of a less insulting word or phrase to describe the second paragraph. Spent like 5 minutes trying to do so.

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

    • icon
      Karl (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 11:43am

      Re: Uh, creators are voters too

      Because you can't tax piracy and the other "sharing" that this site continues to endorse.

      First: This site endorses legal sharing, so if there is money involved, it would be taxed.

      Second: You're the same one who (falsely) believes "Big Search" and "Big Hardware" are the ones behind "Big Piracy." Now, both "Big Search" and "Big Hardware" do pay taxes - in fact, they pay far more taxes than "Big Content." So, by your own definitions, you can tax "piracy."

      You never get sick of being wrong, do you, Bob?

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