Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First...

from the sigh dept

I never stop being surprised at how often the topic of comedy and comedians makes it on our pages. Between strange concepts like comedians claiming copyright on stand-up jokes and a more violent war sometimes waged on the technology audience members carry around in their pockets, it really does feel like those in comedy should have, you know, a better sense of humor about all of this.

But to really see the combination of entitlement and disdain for the public at work in the world of comedy, you have to turn to SNL's Pete Davidson. Davidson apparently tries to smuggle in a non-disclosure agreement to anyone that buys tickets to his stand-up shows, with penalties of up to a million dollars for violations of that agreement.

Whatever you do, never tweet at a Pete Davidson comedy show. The “Saturday Night Live” cast member has recently been doling out non-disclosure agreements before each of his recent comedy shows.

Most recently, fans attending Davidson’s standup at the Sydney Goldstein Theater in San Francisco were asked to sign a lengthy contract that forbade them from tweeting or instagramming any opinions about the performance.

I find it hard to believe that such an NDA would stand up in court. Regardless, it takes a special kind of audacity to make your living in comedy, an industry completely reliant on free speech principles and social commentary, and then insist that paying customers sign away their ability to do likewise. It's enough, seriously, that you have to wonder if this is some new kind of experimental comedy that Davidson is trying out.

Except that customers who have refused to sign the NDA have reported getting full refunds of their purchases without further explanation. If this is comedy, the public appears to be waiting for the punchline.

One attendee, Stacy Young, originally discovered by Consequence of Sound, posted the alleged NDA on her Facebook. It stated: “the individual shall not give any interviews, offer any opinions or critiques, or otherwise participate by any means or in any form whatsoever (including but not limited to blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, or any other social networking or other websites whether now existing or hereafter created).”

The document posted on Facebook also states “Individual is or will be a guest of the Company at a performance event for the purpose of viewing ‘works in progress’ creative content ...”.

The fine for breaking said NDA was a whopping $1 million. "In the event of breach of this agreement, individual shall pay company, upon demand, as liquidated damages, the sum of one million dollars, plus any out of pocket expense."

As we've said, comedians have, for some time, been wary of technology within the walls of any given performance. Cell phone bans have become somewhat common. The stated concerns for that sort of thing have typically revolved around the fear that audiences will record and distribute contents of the show to the public, or that they will record jokes out of context to make comedians sound more offensive than they intend to be. Those fears, while ultimately lame, are at least understandable.

But forcing paying customers to not have a public opinion about a show? That's purely crazy.

"I understand that comedians are protective of their material," Young added. "But to not be allowed to express an opinion, whether I liked it or not, is off-putting in an Orwellian thought police way."

Someone might want to sit Pete Davidson down and explain to him that 1984 wasn't a comedy.

Filed Under: comedy, contracts, free speech, nda, opinions, pete davidson


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 3 Dec 2019 @ 5:50pm

    Telling people you're terrible in one simple step

    Most recently, fans attending Davidson’s standup at the Sydney Goldstein Theater in San Francisco were asked to sign a lengthy contract that forbade them from tweeting or instagramming any opinions about the performance.

    Any time someone tries to gag customers from giving their opinion on a product/service the default assumption should always be that it's because they are offering a garbage product/service, know it, and are trying to prevent people from finding out.

    Unless you live in Bizzaro world you do not want to prevent people from giving positive reviews of what you're offering, so a gag clause like that only makes sense if you're trying to prevent any negative reviews/opinions from getting out and as such should be seen as an admission of a lack of quality of a product/service to be avoided.

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

    • icon
      Norahc (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:23am

      Re: Telling people you're terrible in one simple step

      Any time someone tries to gag customers from giving their opinion on a product/service the default assumption should always be that it's because they are offering a garbage product/service, know it, and are trying to prevent people from finding out.

      Ahh....the Roca Labs Effect.

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 3 Dec 2019 @ 8:25pm

    After Trump forced NDA sigs on White House staffers...

    ...I had hoped the absurdity of those Non-Disclosure Agreements (which were tossed out in court right around the Stormy Daniels debacle) would shed light on the over-use generally and trigger a few more challenges. Creepy NDAs upon employment are a good indicator you shouldn't work there. Creepy NDAs for live entertainment are a good indicator you shouldn't go there to be entertained.

    NDAs are typical for television psychics because there's the matter that they're far worse at cold-reading the audience than it appears on television, and in the 90s this was a shock for some people.

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

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 3:18pm

      Re: After Trump forced NDA sigs on White House staffers...

      I've been to several live audience tapings of TV shows that require these things. The most recently was TALKING DEAD, since they were showing us the season finale of the show WALKING DEAD show well ahead of its airing on TV, they made us sign an NDA agreeing to refrain from posting spoilers on social media and the like. There was nothing about prohibiting us from saying whether we liked it or not, and certainly no million-dollar penalty.

      But it occurred to me that I could just sign any name on the form and hand it in. There was no effort made to ensure that each person was signing their actual name and I bet the same was true at Davidson's show. So if you violated it, and they went back and pulled the stack of NDAs in preparation for taking legal action, there would be no NDA with your signature on it for them to find.

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

  • identicon
    Spyder, 3 Dec 2019 @ 8:46pm

    "the individual shall not give any interviews, offer any opinions or critiques, or otherwise participate"...

    So does that mean, after seeing the show, I could not tell my friends/family "Yeah, the show was great, you should go see it"? By the reading of the NDA, that would be "offering an(y) opinion" and render me liable.

    Given that there would be no other reviews of the show available online (as per the NDA), how else would someone be able to determine if the show is worthy to view?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 12:19am

      Re:

      By watching him on SNL.

      Welcome to patronage in place of copyright because no one respects copyright.

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 1:02am

        Re: Re:

        "Welcome to patronage in place of copyright because no one respects copyright."

        And rightly so. Copyright was a shit idea in the 17th century and has only rotted further since.

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

        • identicon
          Bruce C., 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not quite. When physical media was required, there was a public interest in granting a monopoly that would reduce the risk of the investment in time and money required to publish works of public interest, without trying to determine beforehand which works were in the public interest.

          In the information age, where data is created faster than anyone is able to consume it, such incentives are no longer required.

          The old model had its benefits. The low barrier to entry for online "publishing" means every idiot (including you and I) gets a chance to push their conspiracy theories and muddy the waters of public discourse. Back when an investment was required, only the views of the publishers (and later their editors) got to push their conspiracy theories. Which was less stressful and confusing for the reader, but less democratic/open overall.

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

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:47am

            The old model had its benefits.

            It was still tipped in favor of large business interests, though. Or did you forget how the MPAA’s worries over large-scale copyright infringement nearly killed the VCR (and what would eventually become one of the film industry’s big revenue sources)?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The media isn't the primary cost of producing a creative work that requires labor, that would be the years the artist develops along with all the other work that goes into it.

            An e-book is worth almost the same as a regular book because of what the writer put into it, not because of the pages and cover.

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 6:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "When physical media was required, there was a public interest in granting a monopoly that would reduce the risk of the investment in time and money required to publish works of public interest, without trying to determine beforehand which works were in the public interest."

            Erm, nope.

            The advent of copyright is quite well documented and at no point in time did EVER any of the proponents bring up "public interest".
            What started out as an open fight by the UK parliament trying to wrest away censorship rights from the british crown ended up as an initial win for parliament, until 1695 when, due to extreme popular demand, parliament abolished it.

            Only to reinstitute it after a heavy-handed and shameless lobbying effort by the Guild of stationers who then usurped the censorship power for themselves, with a twist, leading to what is now known as bona fide "Copyright". Again, with not a single nod towards public interest or even author interest. It was made extremely clear then, as it is now, that the only interests catered to was the monopoly of the distributors.

            "The old model had its benefits. The low barrier to entry for online "publishing" means every idiot (including you and I) gets a chance to push their conspiracy theories and muddy the waters of public discourse."

            In other words, democracy and freedom of speech is inconvenient when people actually use it. check.

            "Back when an investment was required, only the views of the publishers (and later their editors) got to push their conspiracy theories."

            Oh, far better when only the small minority percent on top of the social scale get t be heard. Check.

            Was one of your first jobs possibly as PR agent for the old soviet union or the DDR? I think I recognize the argument from way back when.

            "Which was less stressful and confusing for the reader, but less democratic/open overall."

            It hurts a little every time I actually have to point out that whether Freedom of Speech leads to stress or not, it is STILL an absolute requirement for the democratic process. Not something so trivial that a lack of it leads to merely "less" democracy.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:54pm

      Re:

      You could always say "I have absolutely no comment about the quality of this show"...

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

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 3 Dec 2019 @ 9:33pm

    "Davidson apparently tries to smuggle in a non-disclosure agreement to anyone that buys tickets to his stand-up shows, with penalties of up to a million dollars for violations of that agreement. "

    Apparently, someone has a WAY overblown opinion of himself.

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

  • identicon
    Nemo, 3 Dec 2019 @ 10:12pm

    I'm not so sure it's theft of jokes he's worried about

    Or even being called "not funny" with examples given. Rather it may be a legitimate concern that one of the overly-passionate "woke" might take offense (on the behalf of someone who never asked for the service, and for ""Street" cred") and start a witch hunt.

    A lot of comedy is inherently offensive, but in this day and age Groucho Marx might well be run out of town on a rail for some of his schticks, despite his gentle style. It's gotten to the point where one "wrong" joke can ruin your career. Or even the wrong opinion, but the examples are out there.

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

    • icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), 3 Dec 2019 @ 11:12pm

      Re: I'm not so sure it's theft of jokes he's worried about

      yeah he's gotta be careful - if the wrong person complains about one of his jokes, he might end up with a netflix special and an invitation to the joe rogan show

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:42am

        Some people were so worried about how #MeToo would end men’s careers that they forgot to ask whether those careers actually ended or were simply put “on hiatus” until enough time had passed.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:37am

          Re:

          So if the top tennis player in the world is knocked out of Wimbledon due to a #metoo allegation on the eve of the tournament, is the championship still relevant? Is tennis still a sport at that point or just a brand?

          Same for comedy: comedians aren't free to offend anymore, so they're taking countermeasures. What seems to eat some here alive is that there are people who will agree to these terms.

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

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:55am

            comedians aren't free to offend anymore

            Comedians can offend anybody they want. They’re free to offend at any time and place they want, too. They have every legal right to do that. But they’re not free to escape the consequences for doing it. I get the feeling that this reality is what really pisses you off.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:25am

              Re:

              More like the reality that they can use an NDA (as is their right) seems to tick you off.

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

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:28am

                A comedian is free to use an NDA. But everyone else is free to mock and criticize that comedian for doing so. Consequences!

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

                • icon
                  btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 3:22pm

                  Re:

                  A comedian is free to use an NDA. But everyone else is free to mock and criticize that comedian for doing so. Consequences!

                  And those mockers are, in turn, fair game to be laughed at and criticized for getting all spun up over something like this instead of, you know, just not going to the guy's show if NDAs bother you so much. Consequences!

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 3:56pm

                    Re: Re:

                    Welcome to the party bro. You’re rather late as most people of a normal level of intelligence figured that out many, many posts ago, got drunk, had fun, and took an Uber home. But you are welcome here nonetheless.

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

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:00pm

                    Yes, that’s true. What’s your point, other than the one I already made?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:12am

            Re: Re:

            I see unsupported statements of fact.

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

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 9:43am

            Re: Re:

            Well, if there are enough people like me who don’t use Twitter or Facebook hardly at all to begin with, then it’s not terribly surprising that a number of people would agree to it as it imposes no burden on them. Plus, you’d be amazed at what a lot of people will sign. Many people will just sign without actually reading the darn thing.

            That doesn’t mean I think the NDA is right or a good idea. I find it absurd and stupid, TBH. It’s just that I’m not that upset that people are willing to sign it.

            Furthermore, I expect comedians to offend at least some people at some point. It’s practically in their job description. However, nothing that a tennis player is expected to do would plausibly be offensive; if they offend anyone, that’s occurring outside of what we expect them to do. So comparing comedy to tennis isn’t really fair; they’re completely different. And the #metoo movement is nothing like comedians making an offensive joke.

            Plus, have there even been any cases in the past decade or so where a bunch of people tried to get a comedian canceled because they were offended by a joke the comedian made during their act and succeeded or even came close?

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:41am

      A lot of comedy is inherently offensive

      You can be funny without being offensive. And you can be funny and offensive without being a bigoted jerk. But you can’t be a bigoted jerk who tells bigoted jokes and expect anyone besides other bigoted jerks to think you’re funny. It’s all about who you want (and don’t want) to be part of your audience. If you were to tell a rape joke, who would you want laughing at it: rape victims or rapists?

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

      • identicon
        Nemo, 4 Dec 2019 @ 12:03pm

        Re:

        Dead baby jokes and gross jokes were offensive to many, same with religious jokes. I see a lot of discussion of something I did not assert - or is the guy's schtick literally racist? I have no idea.

        But hey, since we're talking past each other, does that mean that the college who punished a student for sarcastically made fun of their annual "Don't wear offensive costumes" message on his FB page by saying that his costume was "going to be" designed to offense as many disparate segments of society as he could manage was right to punish him for that joke? Because he didn't actually do it, y'know.

        I'm not a fan of racism at all, but I'm even less a fan of the overly passionate going after someone who wasn't actually being racist or whatever, just to satisfy whatever agenda they have in mind. And before I'm taken to task for citing it, the popularity of the witch hunters has nothing to do with the principle. In the following the bad guys simply followed a well-established playbook for shutting someone up. They didn't invent it. Same thing goes for the "hate speech" law protecting police from mean words, the police didn't invent that, they merely made use of what already existed.

        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191201/00375943479/content-moderation-scale-is-impossible-that- time-twitter-nazis-got-reporter-barred-twitter-over-some-jokes.shtml

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:13am

      Re: I'm not so sure it's theft of jokes he's worried about

      "A lot of comedy is inherently offensive"

      Or ... why do some humans find offensive behavior humorous?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:59am

        Re: Re: I'm not so sure it's theft of jokes he's worried about

        What one person finds offensive is not always what another finds offensive. I find I am far harder to offend than many people, which includes most of the audience here on TD. Life is more enjoyable when you can laugh at yourself and others without getting your panties in a bunch. I wish that was a more commonly held belief but that's simply not reality. We live in an offense-obsessed culture.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 11:07am

          Life is more enjoyable when you can laugh at yourself and others without getting your panties in a bunch.

          Life is also more enjoyable when you don’t have to worry about a comedian turning your mere existence into a punchline. But I guess trans people don’t deserve that courtesy, do they~?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 12:13pm

            Re:

            But I guess trans people don’t deserve that courtesy, do they~?

            That's an... interesting segue and a possibly tellingly specific example. I didn't call out any particular group; I was speaking about life in general. I have traits that a comedian could use to make an audience laugh and if I were sitting in the front row at their comedy show I could fully expect to be used as such. That's comedy. If I were to get offended at that then clearly I take myself far too seriously.

            The same is true for any group or individual. Those who lack any ability to laugh at themselves must live pretty miserable lives. I also don't see it as my or anyone else's responsibility to ensure that said individuals or groups are never offended as that is entirely a personal problem.

            Now all that said, comedy is comedy. Poking fun or worse at people outside of that context is meant as an insult more often than not. In that context no, it's not ok and people should be able to expect not to be insulted at random. Even so, having a good sense of humor about such events will make your life easier and more enjoyable. Have a giggle instead of a fit of anger and return the favor to the offender. It will piss off the offender rather than satisfy them -- the perfect way to turn the tables on them.

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

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 1:18pm

              Re: Re:

              Comedy that punches down often comes across as mean spirited rather than funny. I think that's what he was getting at about trans people. Making fun of someone for being trans is probably not funny (not going to say it's impossible). Making fun of politicians being afraid of trans people in restrooms can be funny - that's poking fun at the powerful.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 2:08pm

                Re: Re: Re:

                Comedy that punches down often comes across as mean spirited rather than funny. I think that's what he was getting at about trans people.

                Egads, I hope not. That implies he feels trans people are beneath him. I don't think that's the case.

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

                • icon
                  Uriel-238 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 2:21pm

                  Punching down

                  I'd argue that trans folk are more vulnerable, that more of the audience can be counted on not to sympathize with them. Humor at their expense is low-hanging fruit.

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

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:17pm

                  That implies he feels trans people are beneath him.

                  That wasn’t my point. And you know that wasn’t my point. Your disingenuous bullshit doesn’t really deserve a proper response. But I’m gonna give you one anyway.

                  (Most of the following text is adapted from other sources. I claim no ownership over the original sources or this adaptation thereof. All rights wronged. Be sure to tip your waitress. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.)

                  The ultimate question of comedy is this: “Who do you want to include?” Or perhaps, better said: “Who do you not want to include?” The wording of those questions comes from W. Kamau Bell in regards to discussions about comedy and what someone “can” and “cannot” say on stage. This is not about the First Amendment; someone can say whatever they want and not get tossed in jail for it. This is about the nature of response — and, to a similar extent, the nature of a comedian’s aim.

                  All comedy turns someone or something into the intended target of a joke — and that the very person telling a joke can also be the target. (Self-depricating humor is a thing, after all. Just look at Louis CK’s material…well, before all the sexual misconduct allegations, anyway.) When a comedian says something they know will be offensive to certain people, they have made a decision about who they want to laugh at the joke and who they want to offend. “Who are you trying to include in your story's communication? What kind of audience are you truly looking for?” Those are the artist's questions — and that is where intent and approach to execution matter most.

                  A joke about rape will send different messages depending on how the joke is told (execution) and who the joke-teller wants to laugh at it (intent). If I were to tell a joke about how rapists feel entitled to women’s bodies, my joke would aim to use rapists as the target of the joke and bring everyone else (including rape victims) into the audience for that joke. But if I were to tell a joke about a man raping a woman, my joke would instead aim to bring rapists into my audience and use rape victims as the target. This leads to an intentionally provocative ethical question about humor: Who would you prefer to have in your dedicated audience, a rapist or a rape victim?

                  Humor is a social act, a way in which we relate to/interact with others. It is also a way in which we construct identity (i.e., who we are in relation to others). We use humor to form groups and find our individual place in and out of these groups. Joking/humor is one tool with which we assimilate or alienate. But how we use humor is an ethical dilemma: Who do we embrace, who do we shun, how do we do that, and for what reason? (These questions also apply to ideas in general.)

                  Racist/homophobic/sexist/transphobic “jokes” are bad because they both alienate others and help normalize the noxious ideas behind those jokes. A racist joke, for example, sends a message to the intended audience — the in-group — that racism is acceptable. Such joke-tellers use “I was just joking” as a defense to the out-group (and only them). To the in-group, the idea conveyed is already acceptable. If someone accepts that defense, they are willing to enter an in-group where the idea conveyed by that joke is acceptable. But the joke-teller is never “just joking”.

                  Humor is complicated and always a matter of interpretation. Some humor (mainly parody and satire) is designed to alienate racism, homophobia, etc. as ideas. But if you can tell that someone is not engaging in complex humor, never accept “I was just joking” as an excuse. Mitch Hedberg was the funniest stand-up comedian in the world while he was alive, and his material was cleaner and less offensive than that of practically all his contemporaries. Humor does not need to punch down or insult others to be funny. Cruelty is only funny to the similarly cruel.

                  Oh, and one last point: You can find something funny to say on literally any topic, but you must be laughing with the hurting people, not at them. Look at gay comedians talking about homophobia: They describe any number painful experiences, but they find the humor in them, so it lightens the load for everyone. That’s the point of why I mentioned trans people: Cis comedians still get mileage out of mocking trans people — out of laughing at, not with, the hurting people. Nearly every other kind of blatantly bigoted joke is “off-limits” (i.e., bound to be met with disapproval from everyone who isn’t part of the in-group for that joke). But anti-trans jokes still persist because trans people don’t yet have the same cultural acceptance as other minority segments of the population. Life would be more enjoyable for trans people if they didn’t have to worry about their lives becoming a punchline. But I guess giving trans people that personal consideration is too much work for some comedians.

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

                  • icon
                    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 6:53am

                    Re:

                    "Look at gay comedians talking about homophobia: They describe any number painful experiences, but they find the humor in them, so it lightens the load for everyone."

                    I, for one, have to cop to being a very bad person in this regard - the type of humor where the comedian brings their pain and laughs at it usually ends up feeling like a visceral punch in the gut to me.

                    Whereas satire and sarcasm meant to peel a dumb-ass Klansman or pseudonazi Breitbart troll puts a happy grin on my face in no time.

                    I believe everyone, deep down, instinctively draws a border of inclusion and exclusion. Which side of that border you put people in, though, depends entirely on the state of your conscience and ethics.

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

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 5:48pm

                      I, for one, have to cop to being a very bad person in this regard - the type of humor where the comedian brings their pain and laughs at it usually ends up feeling like a visceral punch in the gut to me.

                      Eh, I wouldn’t say that makes you a bad person. It means only that your tastes are different. Not every type of humor is for everybody. I mean, not everyone likes Rick & Morty, even if they have a high IQ. 😁

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

                      • icon
                        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 9 Dec 2019 @ 7:39am

                        Re:

                        "Eh, I wouldn’t say that makes you a bad person. It means only that your tastes are different."

                        Well, yes. I don't find a comedian processing abuse and pain by turning it into a joke very funny at all. More like extremely upsetting.
                        The thought of incredibly unpleasant fellows like upstanding Klansmen and brownshirts having their entire lives reckt? Preferably in public? Puts a serene smile on my lips at once.

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

              • icon
                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 6:47am

                Re: Re: Re:

                "Comedy that punches down often comes across as mean spirited rather than funny."

                That depends. political sarcasm is a thing which I for one consider both important and a high point of humor.

                Humor rapidly stops being humor when it concerns minorities though. I'd say that usually the only time a comedian can get away with minority jokes without weathering a shit-storm of criticism possibly sinking their career is if s/he is themselves part of that minority. A black person can tell jokes using the N-word. Numerous jewish comedians have made their careers built on jewish jokes.

                But it takes time for a minority community to make words and concepts used as slurs their own to the extent they can use them as empowerment.

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

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 3:28pm

            Re:

            Life is also more enjoyable when you don’t have to worry about a comedian turning your mere existence into a punchline. But I guess trans people don’t deserve that courtesy, do they?

            Comedians turn everyone's existence into a punchline. Ever been to a Chris Rock show as a white guy? His entire routine is turning your entire existence into a punchline. He's also damn funny while he does it.

            Why should trans people be exempt from being the butt of jokes like all the rest of us? What makes them so special?

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

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 4:03pm

              Re: Re:

              Why should trans people be exempt from being the butt of jokes like all the rest of us?

              Nobody is exempt from jokes, just like nobody making jokes is exempt from criticism of those jokes. If you want to make fun of trans people, or black people, or handicapped people, or whoever else, you can. But you should be aware that it's difficult to make fun of marginalized groups without coming across as tasteless, malicious, uncreative, or crass, or all of that and more. And you are likely to be called out for it.

              And if you can't see the difference between white guys and trans people (notwithstanding the fact that some trans people are white guys), then you must be even more Republican than I thought.

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

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:27pm

                White people also (still) hold the overwhelming majority of social, political, and economic power in the United States. It’s fine to punch up at White people as a general demographic — as an “idea”, so to speak — for that reason. But it’s also a fine line, in that a joke about poor White people can still be in bad taste. Intersectionality is a pain in the ass like that, I suppose.

                Like I said in a comment above: Comedy is about who you want to laugh at a joke and who you want to offend with that joke. When a Black comedian makes a “White people” joke, they’re obviously trying to bring Black people in on the joke. Whether White people feel like they can laugh at the joke is largely a matter of personal taste.

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 7:07am

              Re: Re:

              "Why should trans people be exempt from being the butt of jokes like all the rest of us? What makes them so special?"

              Well, now, that depends. As a white middle-class guy, say, is there any significant risk of you getting beaten up or possibly killed by, say, a police officer who took one look at your white skin and decided the hand you held in your pocket because it was cold had to be grasping a gun?

              As a cis-gendered male, do you have many situations where every time you are outside since you were a teen you had to keep an eye out for the local gang which liked to beat you into a bleeding pulp for no reason in particular other than identifying as "male"?

              As a christian person, do you have grandparents who came very close to actually being gassed as vermin by people who believed ridding the world of them was a benevolent act...and even today you've got a 1 in 3 chance of having been told you too need the gas chamber?

              If there was, would jokes about that type of situation actually be all that funny?

              Imagine a close beloved relative to you dying. A comedian turns that relative, and their death, into a joke. Everyone laughs. Do you?

              If a comedian turns everyone into a punchline that means that some people in the audience got to be punching bags instead, depending on the topic.

              Hence why all the very best comedians like to think VERY hard about what Stephen T. Stone describes above - whether your comedy is about making people laugh, or about hurting people further and make other people laugh about it.

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

              • icon
                btr1701 (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 11:34am

                Re: Re: Re:

                I lived in Saudi Arabia for five years as a white, western, Christian person. (I'm actually an atheist, but the presumption among the Saudis was that I was Christian so I was one, for all practical purposes.)

                I know what living as an endangered minority is like.

                If there was, would jokes about that type of situation actually be all that funny?

                Depends on how good the comedian was at telling them, but I wouldn't take offense at the mere telling of them.

                Hence why all the very best comedians like to think VERY hard about what Stephen T. Stone describes above

                I'd put Parker & Stone's SOUTH PARK up as some of the best comedy out there and they do 'punch' at literally everyone. And they just don't care if you get the vapors over it.

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

                • icon
                  Uriel-238 (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 12:27pm

                  "Parker & Stone's SOUTH PARK"

                  You mean the status quo is God guys? Yeah, they punch at everything because they're swimming in lucre and things as they are worked out rather well for them.

                  Some of us find that their end-of-ep morality missives haven't aged really well.

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

                  • icon
                    btr1701 (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 2:37pm

                    Re: "Parker & Stone's SOUTH PARK"

                    Some of us find that their end-of-ep morality missives haven't aged really well.

                    Oh, well. Sucks for you, I guess, because as you pointed out, it certainly doesn't suck for them.

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

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 9 Dec 2019 @ 7:53am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "I know what living as an endangered minority is like."

                  No you don't, unless you actually had the perception that in the permanent home where you hope to raise a family, and whose culture and soil you claim as yours, you were permanently fearing for your life while knowing you were a second-class citizen.

                  There's PLENTY of difference between the relatively affluent white man "roughing it in the bush for a few years" as some turn-of-the-century british colonialists would have it - and being the inferior species in the place you actually call your homeland.

                  "Depends on how good the comedian was at telling them, but I wouldn't take offense at the mere telling of them."

                  Which also wasn't the topic, really. In a country with freedom of speech I don't think comedians CAN be "offensive" as I interpret it. Or rather I'd argue that's their job.

                  It's more that "good" comedy is also a weapon, which is why satire is so effective. And that being the case there are two types of comedians out there. Those going after the low hanging fruit try to make 95% of the audience laugh at the 5% while making the minority feel shit about it.
                  Those who are good at it find someone with his/her hands deep in the cookie jar and bring a good social lesson home to everyone with a laugh.

                  "I'd put Parker & Stone's SOUTH PARK up as some of the best comedy out there and they do 'punch' at literally everyone. And they just don't care if you get the vapors over it."

                  I'm an old fan of Carlin so i can empathize.

                  But as far as I can tell, south park did fall short of outright telling trigger jokes, and that's where we find a bunch of modern comedians failing blatantly.

                  Look, it's actually simple. When the comedian starts skewing his/her shows towards a point where the appeal comes from coaxing closet bigotry out of the audience then that comedian has a problem - as does the audience, of course.

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

                  • icon
                    btr1701 (profile), 10 Dec 2019 @ 2:32pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    No you don't

                    You don't know my lived experience and it's arrogant presumption on your part to tell me that you do and that I'm wrong about it.

                    The hard reality is that a not insignificant percentage of the population that surrounded me would have eagerly tortured me to death if given the choice with the tacit approval of the rest.

                    Go live like that for half a decade and then get back to me about what you think I did and did not experience.

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

                    • icon
                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 11 Dec 2019 @ 2:47am

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

                      "Go live like that for half a decade and then get back to me about what you think I did and did not experience."

                      I've done something similar and what it brought me is the realization that no, it isn't comparable.
                      You and I can go abroad to a place where the majority is hostile due to our nominal religion, ethnicity, and/or skin color.

                      But we did not grow up in that environment, in a disadvantaged area, to the point where at our earliest opportunity to make choices changing our lives we had precious few such options left. Most importantly, when we feel we've had enough, you and I can simply leave and go back home.

                      The guy who grows up in a Ferguson ghetto? He gets none of the choices we have and at the point where s/he gets to make any decisions at all about their future what we have is a second-class citizen who knows, correctly, that if he wants respect he needs to get a gun and a gangbanger reputation or else work ten times as hard as someone with white skin - for the rest of his life.

                      Neither you nor I have THAT experience just by going abroad for a few years, whether the enclave we live in is surrounded by hostile natives or not. We were brought up in privilege and we can always leave. Easy to make jokes about that situation - as british colonialists did for centuries. And being a butt of a joke there doesn't really sting.

                      Whereas if you run a real risk of getting shot by cops for being black in the wrong place in your homeland, have a real and genuine risk of being assaulted or raped over your gender or sexual identity...or for that matter ARE a victim already...being the butt of most jokes about your situation is not that funny or tolerable any longer.

                      As I said, I do believe in Freedom of Speech, because no matter how revolting the statement it always serves to enlighten the rest of us what sort of opinions are adhered to by a select few.

                      I just don't think it's good "comedy" to make the suffering of hapless victims the butt of a joke. All THAT does is to tell the audience that "hey, bigotry seems to be a fun thing".

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

                      • icon
                        btr1701 (profile), 11 Dec 2019 @ 2:32pm

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

                        when we feel we've had enough, you and I can simply leave and go back home. We were brought up in privilege and we can always leave.

                        Last I checked, there aren't fences around America keeping anyone in who wants to leave.

                        else work ten times as hard as someone with white skin - for the rest of his life.

                        That's a symptom of poverty, not race. There are plenty of black people who don't grow up poor who don't have to work "ten times as hard as a white person" to be successful in life.

                        have a real and genuine risk of being assaulted or raped over your gender or sexual identity

                        According to FBI crime stats, the rate of assault/rape among trans women is lower than it is for biological women. But don't you dare say that factually true thing on Twitter or they will suspend your account because reality is now apparently 'harassing behavior'.

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

  • identicon
    Junkyard magic, 3 Dec 2019 @ 11:28pm

    Nda for comedy

    Thinks it bad that you don't own what you bought anymore? Wait til you realise you don't own your memories either.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2019 @ 11:36pm

    You would need to pay me a million dollars just for wasting my time watching that asshole. Like the rest of the current lineup of SNL, he's an insufferable, annoying, prick. Even the idiot Ariana couldn't stand him.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2019 @ 11:39pm

      Re:

      And sure, old SNL were assholes in private as well, but at least they were funny.

      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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 12:18am

      Re:

      How many times did he have sex with Ariana before she reached that conclusion? Being a prick seems to pay.

      If you don't want to watch his show, then don't.

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

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 9:45am

        Re: Re:

        WTF?

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

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 3:33pm

        Re: Re:

        He certainly seems to have some inexplicable quality despite looking like the human personification of meth. Ariana Grande, Kate Beckinsale, now Cindy Crawford's supermodel daughter.

        I'm fairly certain there's a demon that holds the marker on that guy's soul. Only conceivable explanation for it.

        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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 12:17am

    When you immunize websites from defamation and copyright-infringement lawsuits, artists have to take matters into their own hands, by exercising their right to draw up individual contracts which serve the same purpose. Serial numbers have to go into books, onto videos, etc. and NDAs will become standard.

    This is the patronage model that destroys mass distribution of entertainment, yet it doesn't hold any ISPs liable. In fact, the ISPs can be used to get evidence against anyone who breaches the NDA.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 1:08am

      Re:

      "When you immunize websites from defamation and copyright-infringement lawsuits..."

      Oh, wait, this is another of your diatribes where you want to hold 3rd parties responsible for what users do, isn't it?

      Baghdad bob, you need to learn that your views are just so malicious they can not be disguised no matter how "reasonable" you try to make them sound.

      What's next? Going to spring for the old "If police are crippled by bureaucracy all criminals will go free" as an excuse to wedge in abolishing the "innocent until proven guilty" paradigm you've tried to peddle so many times before?

      Collective punishment and making holding a website impossible in practice is not the way to go. No matter how much you loathe the fact that due to section 230 people can actually read up on your fraud schemes online before falling for them. I think we all realize the harm that piece of legislation brings to "perfectly innocent" confidence tricksters, copyright trolls and frauds of all stripes.

      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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:35am

        Re: Re:

        Someone who can't write books that others find useful has to trash the entire genre as a "scam" or "fraud," which of course would be defamatory if I weren't posting anonymously.

        Pete Davidson isn't trying to hold any websites accountable, but instead is taking countermeasures to address the new reality of the internet. Those who think OTHERS shouldn't support his work are throwing a tantrum over this.

        Just like men stopped dealing with women at work in response to #metoo. They can support bringing down sexual harassers while being prudent to avoid the many false allegations that result when women who slept their way into jobs then complain that someone on the job slept with them.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:55am

          Someone who can't write books that others find useful has to trash the entire genre as a "scam" or "fraud," which of course would be defamatory

          How can you defame a genre of literature? 🤔

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Just like men stopped dealing with women at work in response to #metoo. "

          Perhaps a reference from a trusted source who performed a scientific study of the present day workforce from C-Suite to below minimum wage would be of benefit to your wild ass claim.

          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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Just like men stopped dealing with women at work in response to #metoo. "

            Perhaps a reference from a trusted source who performed a scientific study of the present day workforce from C-Suite to below minimum wage would be of benefit to your wild ass claim.

            "Trusted source" is credentialism, but I think this one and the 1000 others that covered this, as well as HARVARD, who conducted the study, is pretty sufficient:

            https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/29/men-women-workplace-study-harassmen t-harvard-metoo

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

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:26am

              Wow, it’s almost as if a lot of men don’t want to change their shitty behavior and think women are the problem instead~. Imagine that~.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "The data above was collected in early 2019 from workers across a wide range of industries."

              Quite the reference there, I am impressed with the amount of data I was able to peruse and how they statistically represented the entire workforce.
              /s

              Poor dudes, are shamed when they harass.

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

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:45am

          Re: Men dealing with women at work

          Just like men stopped dealing with women at work in response to #metoo.

          Hi, Cishet man here. #metoo has done no such thing. It just means I can't be a womanizer and that I have to treat women with respect. And I have already been doing that and I didn't get into any such trouble.

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 7:27am

            Re: Re: Men dealing with women at work

            "Hi, Cishet man here. #metoo has done no such thing. It just means I can't be a womanizer and that I have to treat women with respect. And I have already been doing that and I didn't get into any such trouble."

            Oddly enough my experiences are similar.

            I wish I could say no man would be enough of an idiot to believe that trying to fall down a womans cleavage, grabbing her butt in passing, or lace his speech with crude innuendo would somehow lead to romantic engagement. But, as can be seen from Baghdad bob's latest attempt at posting something thought-provoking and enlightening, no such luck...

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 11:06am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Someone who can't write books that others find useful has to trash the entire genre as a "scam" or "fraud," which of course would be defamatory if I weren't posting anonymously.

          Truth is never defamatory.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 7:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Someone who can't write books that others find useful has to trash the entire genre as a "scam" or "fraud," which of course would be defamatory if I weren't posting anonymously."

          Hmm, would this be those books on card counting and other fraudulent behavior I've read so much about back on Torrentfreak?

          Yeah, I'm pretty sure that even if section 230 didn't exist that type of criticism would still be safe since opinion is still fully protected by the first amendment.

          But I guess you're still hoping that SCOTUS will overturn every last one of their previous rulings on that subject? Or are you hoping that a sufficient number of SLAPP suits will have platforms keeling over left, right and center to accommodate you rather than countersue you into oblivion?

          "Just like men stopped dealing with women at work in response to #metoo."

          Oh, stop. If you can't "deal" with a woman at work without slapping her ass, stare down her cleavage, or insert uninvited innuendos or outright inappropriate suggestions in conversations then, frankly speaking, that says a lot about you as a person which only validates every last item in #MeToo.

          "...false allegations that result when women who slept their way into jobs then complain that someone on the job slept with them."

          It's somehow very illuminating when your first reaction to a woman complaining about a sexual predator at work is the assumption that she slept her way into the job.

          So...other than complaining about Free Speech and demonizing women who dare complain about sexual abuse as opportunistic sluts, do you have any further hobbies you'd like to share with us, Baghdad bob?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 2:09am

      Re:

      As the Grateful Dead figured out, long before the Internet became a thing, any recording of live concerts are good advertising for live concerts. Also, any reviews will help to attract an audience that will appreciate the act. Rather than being a control freak, it is much better to give people a reason to support you, and for stand up comedians, that means attracting an audience to fill the venues, and trying to ensure nobody talks about your act is counter productive.

      Driving potential fans away before they can experience what you offer, and ensuring that nobody is talking about your work is more likely to lead to a shrinking audience, that a groweing fan base.
      .

      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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:32am

        Re: Re:

        Which is fine if one wants to perform labor and travel to make money, but copyright law allows many others (like songwriters) not to have to do that.

        How ironic that without copyright and other IP law, the equipment used to record the concerts would never have existed.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:57am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Copyright allows publishers to take control over the work of others, and when they were the gateway to publication, they selected winners and losers, and made took most of the profit from the works they controlled. Hint, the Grateful Dead were not concerned about concert recording replacing record sales, as they made no money either way, but were making their money from live performances.

          Now more people than ever are publishing their work for free, and making a living from the support they receive from fans via the likes of Patreon. However this does mean that they have to work for their income, as it is their ability to produce new works that keeps the support from their fans.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Copyright allows publishers to take control over the work of others,

            No, it allows artists to GRANT them that control, in return for money. SAG-AFTRA actors are paid UP FRONT, and most famous ones are millionaires. Anna Faris paid to rent a home for twelve in Tahoe.

            and when they were the gateway to publication, they selected winners and losers, and made took most of the profit from the works they controlled.

            Except when they didn't. MC Hammer sold his first records from the back of a van at his shows. What they have is DISTRIBUTION that is valuable (guaranteed audience based on their prior work, like Disney), and that became valuable because the PUBLIC wants gatekeepers. In a world without copyright, reviewers would have all the power and that leads to PAYOLA.

            Copyright protects far more than entertainment. Without that protection, many could not create. That's why today's music stinks.

            Hint, the Grateful Dead were not concerned about concert recording replacing record sales, as they made no money either way, but were making their money from live performances.

            You saw their contract? Not every musician can or should have to tour. Songwriters aren't always singers. They're making a fraction of what they made under the old system.

            Now more people than ever are publishing their work for free, and making a living from the support they receive from fans via the likes of Patreon.

            More people are making extra money, but many are also failing and the internet is flooded with subpar content that has to be sifted through. A few get rich without involving any middlemen (like the YT stars), but even they need copyright or their work would just be stolen by pirates rather than sold to media companies.

            Anyone who doesn't want to pay for copyrighted content is free to ignore it rather than steal is. Kim Dotcomm shouldn't be getting rich in a world where artists are not.

            However this does mean that they have to work for their income, as it is their ability to produce new works that keeps the support from their fans.

            Songwriting is work, as is producing. Feeding parasites is not a sustainable business model. As the legacy content loses relevance, or enters the public domain, there won't be much there to replace it other than a bunch of cellphone videos from YT.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 9:07am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              As the legacy content loses relevance, or enters the public domain, there won't be much there to replace it other than a bunch of cellphone videos from YT.

              Try visiting Jamendo and explore the riches of free to download music.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 11:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Without that protection, many could not create. That's why today's music stinks.

              This doesn't make any sense at all. Today's music enjoys a higher level of copyright "protection" than at any time in the past. Today's music "stinks" because you don't like it. To others it is the best music ever written. And all of it is protected effectively forever and without limitation leading to some pretty ridiculous court decisions in lawsuits between creators.

              I disagree with most here on TD that believe copyright should be abolished. I think it needs a drastic overhaul but there has to be some way to protect a creator's income potential and prevent some random person from collecting all the profit from the creator by overwhelming the creator's distribution with their own. However, that should be only for a very limited time as was originally built into copyright and never extend to family, friends and other inheritors be they relatives or publishers after the artist's death. New copyright rules should also more clearly define and enshrine Fair Use and things like sampling (for music).

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

            • icon
              Samuel Abram (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 11:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Copyright protects far more than entertainment. Without that protection, many could not create. That's why today's music stinks.

              Have you ever heard of the Amen break? It's the drum solo in the Winston's 1969 track "Amen Brother!". It is the most sampled loop in recorded music history, and new genres of electronic music (e.g. Drum 'n Bass, Jungle) were created from that very sample. The copyright owner of the loop, Richard Spencer (not the Nazi) felt he was "ripped off", and was unable to sue as the statute of limitations expired. But he got paid through crowdfunding instead. I think getting paid through crowdfunding is a happier ending than chilling effects happening to entire genres of music.

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 7:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Copyright protects far more than entertainment. Without that protection, many could not create. That's why today's music stinks."

              Because copyright is far more controlling and far more draconian than ever before? Yes, that'd be correct.

              Through history there is ample evidence that times and places without copyright were golden ages of creativity - and nowhere is that clearer than when we look at the history consisting of 99% of what we today call "great classical culture". Most of which was written and composed in times and places where "copyright" didn't exist even as a glint in Bloody Mary's eye.

              "Not every musician can or should have to tour."

              Every professional in the world, through recorded history has had to travel to where the job is.

              I'm sure plumbers would all think it would be nice if they never had to do anything other than design toilets, have someone sell the toilet for them, and then be paid extravagantly every time someone flushed...but that's not how reality can or should work.

              In entertainment many are called and few chosen. To those few it doesn't matter whether people make copies of their work or not. It benefits them.
              The rest, bluntly put, should never have quit their day job.

              I see you broke out all the stops with the same tired old argument we debunked umpteen times back on Torrentfreak, Bobmail. It's almost nostalgic.

              But you know, you aren't exactly addressing a new audience here, most of us having seen this exact bundle of copyright cult doctrine from you many times before.
              Are you just copypasting your old work in the hopes of getting a post to stick long enough to finally get paid for it?

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2019 @ 5:28pm

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

                The best part is? bobmail will freely admit that today's music stinks. Yet he'll bend over backwards and tie his vertebrae into a Gordian knot to give it even stronger copyright protection than the music that doesn't stink...

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

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 10 Dec 2019 @ 1:17am

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

                  "bobmail will freely admit that today's music stinks. Yet he'll bend over backwards and tie his vertebrae into a Gordian knot to give it even stronger copyright protection than the music that doesn't stink..."

                  Oh, indeed. The same way he leaps out in defense of prolonged copyright terms because otherwise the long-dead artists won't be incentivized to create new art.

                  Bobmail/blue/Jhon has this running set of arguments which, taken together, pan out to mean that copyright must be maximalized because otherwise artists dead for 20+ years won't be able to make new really awful music. And 99% of the classic culture we know of can't exist because it was made without the benefits of copyright.

                  It's why I like to call him "Baghdad Bob" - there's just no other inveterate liar around today who is THAT far down la-la land in his sheer denial of factual and eminently observable reality.

                  The really delicious part here? Bobmail's arguments may be insane and in direct opposition to any form of truth but they are still the best arguments you CAN deliver for copyright. You literally can't offer any defense of it without starting with a whopping lie or ten.

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

                  • icon
                    nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2019 @ 6:44am

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

                    It's why I like to call him "Baghdad Bob" - there's just no other inveterate liar around today who is THAT far down la-la land in his sheer denial of factual and eminently observable reality.

                    I don't agree.

                    "The Dow is down 573 points perhaps on the news that Representative Seth Moulton, whoever that may be, has dropped out of the 2020 Presidential Race!"

                    “This is a trade war that should have taken place a long time ago by a lot of other presidents. Somebody had to do it,” he said. He then looked to the sky and intoned, “I am the chosen one.”

                    "We're going to be saying Christmas again."

                    "We have accomplished more than any president in the first year, by far."

                    "At least you got a nice boat out of it."

                    "You know, I was dealt a lot of bad hands."

                    "Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?"

                    "And they say the noise [of windmills] causes cancer."

                    "Hillary Clinton…started the birther controversy."

                    "There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down."

                    "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."

                    "I've seen [unemployment] numbers of 24 percent—I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. "

                    "I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me."

                    "I know more about drones than anybody."

                    "I know more about courts than any human being on Earth."

                    "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth."

                    "[L]ook, as a builder, nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump."

                    "I know more about Cory [Booker] than he knows about himself."

                    "Technology — nobody knows more about technology than me."

                    • You know who

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hey bro. You do realise that Hollywood is Hollywood because they were trying to get away from IP laws don’t you?

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

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hi, I benefit from copyright law. I have a 20% writing credit in this song. That means that every six months or so, I receive a check from BMI and every now and then I get a check from my publisher Songtrust. I would also LOVE to perform more because I hardly get the chance to do so.

          That being said, while I don't wish copyright would go away, the maximalists have expanded the scope so much that it's now "opt-out" instead of "opt-in". Had the US joined the Berne Convention when it was ratified, we wouldn't have great remix shows like Mystery Science Theater 3000 nor would we have great works in the public domain like Night of the Living Dead. While I am in no ay an abolitionist, there is far too much copyright covering everything when it needs to be scaled back so the public can once again benefit. Hey, without the Public Domain, we wouldn't have Disney (go figure), Nintendo as a video game company (Donkey Kong came from King Kong, which is in the public domain to the uncopyrighted novelization of the movie), the Konami Legend of the Mystical Ninja games (Goemon was the Japanese Robin Hood who, like Hercules, Jesus Christ, and Santa Claus, were legendary figures based upon real people), and the list goes on and on. I thank my lucky stars that copyright expired at the beginning of this year and will again at the end of this month, because if we can't make new expressions off of old ones, where are they going to come from?

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 7:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You should realize that the person you address is the same old copyright maximalist who spammed several forums with the exact same argument he's trying to peddle above.

            He's not going to listen to you because in his mind you are one of those apostates deviating from the sacred teachings of the copyright cult.

            We're still not too sure whether he actually believes in the tripe he's writing or if he's astroturfing. I'd like to think he's at so low a caliber even the MPAA/RIAA wouldn't pay for it...

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:21am

        Re: Re:

        Like most musicians, they realized they made more money touring.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:24am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not all who write music sing or are even able to tour.

          Abolish copyright and you abolish the incentive to create works. That's why we have copyright law and also why this site will never see that change.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So then, you agree with me that touring pays more?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Abolish copyright and you abolish the incentive to create works.

            The Internet proves that you are wrong, as most creation is driven by reasons other than to make money.

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

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Abolish copyright and you abolish the incentive to create works.

            On the contrary, you couldn't stop people from creating if you tried.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 8:39am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Abolish copyright and you abolish the incentive to create works.

            I guess there was nothing created before copyright existed then, right? Or were things like the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, or the Bible just outliers?

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

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:01am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Not all who write music sing or are even able to tour.

            There are other ways to make money than singing or touring. Merchandising, for example. Plus, even if the songwriter can’t sing or tour, they can get money from those who do using their songs.

            Abolish copyright and you abolish the incentive to create works.

            Right. Because no one ever writes creative works and then offers them completely for free without worrying about copyrighting them, like fanfiction, open-source projects, some webcomics, freeware, Doki Doki Literature Club, Cave Story (the original), Deltarune Chapter 1, Yume Nikki, creepypastas, YouTube videos, some school plays or concerts, street performers, noncommissioned stuff on DeviantArt, etc.

            I’m not saying that copyright should be abolished or that creators shouldn’t be compensated in some fashion for their work. I’m just saying the notion that money and copyright provide the only incentives for creative works is ludicrous.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 11:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Abolish copyright and you abolish the incentive to create works

            That is simply false. Fake news.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 1:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Totally bro. That Shakespeare guy was a notorious IP maximalist. You fucking numpty.

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 7:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Abolish copyright and you abolish the incentive to create works. That's why we have copyright law..."

            Mozart, Beethooven and Bach. Shakespeare.
            About 99% of what we today call the great classics.

            All of which can't have existed according to Bobmail, our own Baghdad bob.

            It won't work here anymore than it did when you tried spamming that sentence on every thread on Torrentfreak, Bobmail. Or do you prefer the name Blue, Jhon or Hamilton here?

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 7:01am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Abolish copyright and you abolish the incentive to create works."

            Shakespeare, Mozart, and a just about every other major composer, author and artist over the last 2000 years would like a word with you about how they couldn't exist...

            I realize the only reason you've kept repeating that threadbare and oft-debunked excuse for so many years now is because the very second you admit it's a bona fide pants-on-fire lie is when even you won't have a single good excuse for the copyright monopoly any longer.

            But you should know by now that the time when you could push that lie past even fairly dumb and ignorant sheeple is over.

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

    • icon
      Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:53am

      Re:

      "When you immunize websites from defamation and copyright-infringement lawsuits, artists have to take matters into their own hands, by exercising their right to draw up individual contracts which serve the same purpose."

      The artist who commits defamation and copyright infringement is responsible for defamation and copyright infringement and therefore the correct target for any legal action.

      Serial numbers have to go into books, onto videos, etc. and NDAs will become standard.

      Whatever. If they violate the First Amendment they have no legal force.

      This is the patronage model that destroys mass distribution of entertainment, yet it doesn't hold any ISPs liable.

      Nonsense! ISPs are only responsible for what they themselves do. Individuals are responsible for what they themselves do. Techdirt is not responsible for your ignorance, you are.

      In fact, the ISPs can be used to get evidence against anyone who breaches the NDA.

      NDAs that violate the Constitution have no force in law.

      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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:31am

        Re: Re:

        • Nonsense! ISPs are only responsible for what they themselves do. Individuals are responsible for what they themselves do.*

        What ISPs do is enable distribution of defamation, which makes them liable as distributors in other countries, but who are currently immune under Section 230, just as they were for revenge porn that got spread.

        Now who caused more harm by posting revenge porn: the person who posted it, or the search engine that served it up to a woman's employer, landlord, family, and friends?

        This is why Mike never debates this issue anywhere else, though one could easily review his book on Amazon to properly school the public.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:03am

          who caused more harm by posting revenge porn: the person who posted it, or the search engine that served it up to a woman's employer, landlord, family, and friends?

          The person who posted it. The search engine could not know, unless its operator(s) had corroborating information, that the revenge porn was revenge porn. Search engine spiders scan for content, not context.

          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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:13am

            Re:

            Distributor liability doesn't kick in until the site is put on notice, "Stephen."

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

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:24am

              Please cite a case in the United States where Google was successfull held liable for defamatory content under your theory of distributor liability.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:34am

              Re: Re:

              Distributor liability seems to be your wet dream, is there any reason for you to think that such outrageous legislation would find its way into the us law? How does this happen? Is it like that cartoon they show children about how a bill becomes a law? Why do we lie to our children about our society?

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

              • icon
                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 8:00am

                Re: Re: Re:

                "Distributor liability seems to be your wet dream"

                Of course it is. Ten to one that if we had his real name and googled it we'd find someone convicted of fraud or a spate of shit consumer reviews on services or, more likely (given his harping on literature) books.

                I'm more and more certain that we're reading and responding to the same Bobmail fellow who tried to spam Torrentfreak for years until it went over to a sign-in model at which point he went up in smoke, apparently having moved to forums which still don't require dedicated accounts.

                He's into copyright as a personal religion, into no one being able to tell whether someone has been charged with fraud, has a hateboner for pirates who he thinks stole his mailing list, and doesn't understand why we have the concept of "burden of proof" because he thinks it would be great progress if all you had to do to get a check with money was to mass-email out some loose allegations based on ip numbers.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 11:17am

              Re: Re:

              Distributor liability

              ... doesn't exist on the internet. Nice try though.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 11:21am

              Re: Re:

              You put this site on “legal notice” years ago. Where’s my fucking subpoena bro?!

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

        • icon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          ISP's enable their customers to access the Internet and/or the WWW. Just to be clear, the Internet and/or the WWW are world wide thingy's. Now how is an ISP's gonna moderate the entire world and every site on those truly extensive networks?

          You are conflating ISP and platform, and not for the first time. Like the idiot so called comedian in the extant article you think you deserve more than you actually deserve. If in fact if you did deserve something you would get it.

          Oh, you do deserve something, the derision of every thinking human that visits this website, and to a large extent you are getting what you deserve. Derision.

          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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Now how is an ISP's gonna moderate the entire world and every site on those truly extensive networks?

            The same way they do to stop child porn.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              When the end justifies the means ....
              any means is justified.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:39am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              There is not a lot of Child porn on the open Internet for a very good reason, posting it is a quick way to get arrested.

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

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 8:00am

              Child porn is child porn. How can someone tell, at a glance, whether a specific sentence of text (e.g., “Mike Masnick fucks wild geese in his spare time”) is defamatory or, say, an outlandish example used to talk about context in moderation efforts?

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

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That’s because there are very few exceptions to or qualities of child porn that would make it difficult for a machine to successfully catch virtually all child porn. As such, there are fewer false positives or false negatives (though both still exist, especially false positives). By contrast, there are a lot of exceptions to and qualities of copyright infringement and defamation that make it impossible to censor even close to all the wrongful content without preventing a ton of appropriate content in the process. The risk-reward scale is completely different there.

              Plus, fewer people post child porn or content similar to child porn than those who post content that could possibly be defamatory or copyright infringing.

              And to make it clear, even the child porn filters aren’t perfect. Though they generally do a pretty good job of eliminating all instances of a particular image of child porn that has already been identified because of how images work and the fact that child porn is illegal regardless of who posted it. (By contrast, copyright infringement has a ton of exceptions like fair use, licensed use, or use by the copyright owner, and defamation is typically text and highly context-sensitive, so the same tools wouldn’t work for those.) However, even then, there are false positives and false negatives.

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

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What ISPs do is enable distribution of defamation, which makes them liable as distributors in other countries, but who are currently immune under Section 230, just as they were for revenge porn that got spread.

          Name a US case that ruled that way prior to Section 230.

          Now who caused more harm by posting revenge porn: the person who posted it, or the search engine that served it up to a woman's employer, landlord, family, and friends?

          The person who posted it. That was easy.

          This is why Mike never debates this issue anywhere else, though one could easily review his book on Amazon to properly school the public.

          1. That’s review bombing, which, while perfectly legal, is generally frowned upon.

          2. Mike has already refuted that claim; he does debate the issue elsewhere. You’re just flat-out wrong.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 12:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I wonder if Jhon here would try to kill an unwanted tree in his front yard by repeatedly hacking the branches off...(hint: that's not a very effective method if you want the tree to stay gone. you're better off digging the tree out, or at the very least chopping the whole thing down and injecting the stump).

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 8:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh no. He’s just bitch and moan to whatever prostitute he’s most recently hired and haven’t driven off yet.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          “This is why Mike never debates this issue anywhere else, though one could easily review his book on Amazon to properly school the public.”

          Ah impotent threats to ruin someone else. Classic jhonboi. You planning on threatening on raping anyone today or you just gonna play it by ear?

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

        • icon
          Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 5:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What ISPs do is enable distribution of defamation, which makes them liable as distributors in other countries, but who are currently immune under Section 230, just as they were for revenge porn that got spread.

          We've had this conversation. Trolling for butthurt money from the people who appear to have it -- the only possible reason for not going after the actual perpetrators -- is not a viable business model. The defamation is done by the individual alone. You have the option to report breach of TOS to the ISP. Bear in mind -- as I told you before -- that defamation is treated differently in different countries and most of the time unless actual harm is done, there's no standing to sue. Do you just go blind when you see my name in the comments, or something? You've not learned a damn thing.

          Now who caused more harm by posting revenge porn: the person who posted it, or the search engine that served it up to a woman's employer, landlord, family, and friends?

          The person who posted it. Such people tend to contact the employer, etc., to make sure they see it.

          This is why Mike never debates this issue anywhere else, though one could easily review his book on Amazon to properly school the public.

          He's not obliged to engage with disingenuous attention-seekers like yourself.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 7:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "What ISPs do is enable distribution of defamation, which makes them liable as distributors in other countries..."

          In the exact same way that phone companies enables distribution of slander, you mean?

          The same old arguments you tried to push past the crowd on Torrentfreak five years ago, Bobmail, and it doesn't work here either.

          "Now who caused more harm by posting revenge porn: the person who posted it, or the search engine that served it up to a woman's employer, landlord, family, and friends?"

          The person who posted it, obviously and according to every law.

          The search engine is completely free of blame.

          It's the same way neither the city architect nor the city newspaper is responsible for the drug dealers peddling their stuff down at the corner of fifth avenue.

          Like I keep saying, Bobmail, your argument that democracy must be abolished because you can't stand when people google your name and come up with a fraud charge and an unflattering review just doesn't stand.

          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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:23am

        Re: Re:

        NDAs that violate the Constitution have no force in law.

        These NDAs do not violate the constitution since it's essentially a private event.

        Same reason private clubs can be all-male.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "These NDAs do not violate the constitution since it's essentially a private event."

          So they are can not discuss details of the private event at the private event but after having left said event ... they are free to talk about it?
          Inquiring minds want to know.

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

        • icon
          Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 5:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          These NDAs do not violate the constitution since it's essentially a private event.

          They breach the First Amendment on the first attempt to enforce them.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:10am

      When you immunize websites from defamation and copyright-infringement lawsuits

      Websites are not immune from lawsuits for either defamation or copyright infringement. They are immune from such lawsuits, however, if third parties are the ones truly responsible for the defamation/infringement. The people who committed the act are responsible for that act. If you want to hold the tools responsible, I have to ask: Would you sue a hardware store or a tool manufacturer if, while using a hammer, you hit your thumb instead of a nail?

      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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:29am

        Re:

        The people who committed the act are responsible for that act. If you want to hold the tools responsible, I have to ask: Would you sue a hardware store or a tool manufacturer if, while using a hammer, you hit your thumb instead of a nail?

        For foreseeable harm they could be sued. Distributor liability deals with the act of SPREADING libel, which is a separate harm from publishing it, a harm that had to be immunized by Section 230 (otherwise no need for the law). Courts in every country other than the US recognize this but "Stephen" knows better.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:59am

          For foreseeable harm they could be sued.

          Then why hasn’t anyone successfully sued a hardware store or a hammer manufacturer for “foreseeable harm” after that someone hit their thumb with a hammer? 🤔

          Distributor liability deals with the act of SPREADING libel, which is a separate harm from publishing it, a harm that had to be immunized by Section 230 (otherwise no need for the law).

          Your misunderstanding of how the law works aside, please explain why Twitter should be held 100% legally liable if I retweet someone else’s tweet that contains a link to a whole other website (one not owned or operated by the retweeted user) that happens to contain allegedly defamatory content.

          I’ll wait.

          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, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:03am

            Re:

            Your misunderstanding of how the law works aside, please explain why Twitter should be held 100% legally liable if I retweet someone else’s tweet that contains a link to a whole other website (one not owned or operated by the retweeted user) that happens to contain allegedly defamatory content.

            The "why" is simple: distributor liability, i.e., for spreading defamation. Every court in the world, and the American courts prior to 1996, recognize this clear seprate harm from the original publication.

            Absent Section 230 in the US, or in other countries, the TWEET is what you "published," and what you published spread libel for which you'd be held accountable just as the search engines are in Australia. If you have 50,000 followers, and the original account had six, then YOUR tweet is the one that caused most of the damage.

            Some people pretend that third parties created the sites to which they link when in fact they were involved in creating them but hide it to claim 230 immunity.

            Of course, in practice, what happens is the website doesn't get sued, twitter doesn't get sued, but any USER who stumbles upon the site and starts repeating what it says DOES get sued, making it very profitable for the plaintiff to just go about his business online, wait for people who don't like him (or her) to go Googling, let nature take its course, and sue anyone too stupid to realize that while the websites and search engines are immune, they are not.

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

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:20am

              Re: Re:

              distributor liability

              Okay, time to settle this once and for all.

              To really understand Section 230, you have to go all the way back to the 1950s. There was a Los Angeles ordinance that said if you have obscene material in your store, you can be held criminally responsible. So a vice officer sees this erotic book that he believes is obscene. Eleazar Smith, who owns the store, is prosecuted, and he’s sentenced to 30 days in jail.

              This goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and what the Supreme Court says is that the Los Angeles ordinance is unconstitutional. There’s absolutely no way that a distributor like a bookstore could review every bit of content before they sell it. So if you’re a distributor, you’re going to be liable only if you knew, or should have known, that what you’re distributing is illegal.

              Then we get to these early internet services like CompuServe and Prodigy in the early ‘90s. CompuServe is like the Wild West. It basically says, “We’re not going to moderate anything.” Prodigy says, “We’re going to have moderators, and we’re going to prohibit bad stuff from being online.” They’re both, not surprisingly, sued for defamation based on third-party content.

              CompuServe’s lawsuit is dismissed because what the judge says is, yeah, CompuServe is the electronic equivalent of a newsstand or bookstore. The court rules that Prodigy doesn’t get the same immunity because Prodigy actually did moderate content, so Prodigy is more like a newspaper’s letter to the editor page. So you get this really weird rule where these online platforms can reduce their liability by not moderating content.

              That really is what triggered the proposal of Section 230. For Congress, the motivator for Section 230 was that it did not want platforms to be these neutral conduits, whatever that means. It wanted the platforms to moderate content.

              (Source)

              Some people pretend that third parties created the sites to which they link when in fact they were involved in creating them but hide it to claim 230 immunity.

              Please cite the existence of even one person that backs up your ridiculous proposition.

              what happens is the website doesn't get sued, twitter doesn't get sued, but any USER who stumbles upon the site and starts repeating what it says DOES get sued

              Please cite a single lawsuit wherein the (allegedly) defamatory speech of a third party on a platform such as Twitter was used to sue an entirely different person who merely repeated the speech.

              making it very profitable for the plaintiff to just go about his business online, wait for people who don't like him (or her) to go Googling, let nature take its course, and sue anyone too stupid to realize that while the websites and search engines are immune, they are not

              Unless they provided the speech themselves, they are. Note the text of 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1):

              No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

              Can you tell me what two words you seem to be ignoring in that sentence? I can: “or user”. 230 protects the users of an interactive web service (e.g., Twitter) from being held liable for the speech of others (e.g., a tweet from an entirely different user). I could no more be held liable for retweeting a user who says something defamatory than Twitter could for merely hosting the speech.

              Also: Please cite a single case of anyone carrying out your ridiculous “wait to be Googled and sue the person who put in the search term” plan.

              I’ll wait.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 8:28am

              Re: Re:

              Of course, in practice, what happens is the website doesn't get sued, twitter doesn't get sued, but any USER who stumbles upon the site and starts repeating what it says DOES get sued, making it very profitable for the plaintiff to just go about his business online, wait for people who don't like him (or her) to go Googling, let nature take its course, and sue anyone too stupid to realize that while the websites and search engines are immune, they are not.

              And any plaintiff who does this, when it's clear that the party they're targeting isn't the originator of the speech, is just after money and not a "clearing of their name." Why would I support laws that make it easier for them to carry out such behavior?

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

              • icon
                Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 5:42am

                Re: Re: Re:

                And any plaintiff who does this, when it's clear that the party they're targeting isn't the originator of the speech, is just after money and not a "clearing of their name." Why would I support laws that make it easier for them to carry out such behavior?

                I've been referring to this as "Trolling for butthurt money as a business model," which is exactly what Jhon is advocating for here. I think he's testing the waters to see if it's worth doing. It's not. Even Prenda wouldn't be that dumb.

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

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 8:14am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "I think he's testing the waters to see if it's worth doing. It's not. Even Prenda wouldn't be that dumb."

                  And yet poor old Bobmail/Jhon has tried that argument repeatedly for five years on Torrentfreak and a few less than that here.

                  He'll never get tired of it because at SOME point, in his own little la-la land, he'll be right and manage to have all the pirates and mean people shit-talking him hauled off in chains while money falls into his pockets from the sky.
                  Problem is, every time he wakes up and finds reality to be in discord with his happy dreams he just HAS to go post something to set things right.

                  I'd feel pity for him and his mental disadvantages, except that he's both so generally disagreeable and inflammatory even gandhi would lay him out, and there's a non-zero chance he's one of those few astroturfers still getting a few cents now and then for repeating the same tired old copyright cult hyperbole on as many forums as he conveniently can.

                  We sort of built this image of him as a failed rent-seeker idolizing Prenda and rightscorp, who at some point tried to peddle some get-rich-quick book on card counting using mailing lists which he's infuriated that "pirates" apparently stole from him. And who is continually infuriated that google apparently allows anyone with knowledge of his real name to find less flattering references to him - which apparently impacts his ability to pursue his profession as an IT-savvy legal eagle and successful businessman.

                  If you think "Wannabe Trump" you're probably close.

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

                  • icon
                    Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 3:07am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    We sort of built this image of him as a failed rent-seeker idolizing Prenda and rightscorp, who at some point tried to peddle some get-rich-quick book on card counting using mailing lists which he's infuriated that "pirates" apparently stole from him. And who is continually infuriated that google apparently allows anyone with knowledge of his real name to find less flattering references to him - which apparently impacts his ability to pursue his profession as an IT-savvy legal eagle and successful businessman.

                    Eh, he did that himself with his own conduct. If that's what he wants us to believe about him he should carry on. If he wants us to believe what he believes about himself he needs to act accordingly.

                    How many times must I say it? Your own conduct determines what others think of you. That's ::EXACTLY:: why, when that troll came after me a few years ago, his efforts failed. Why? I don't behave that way and there's no record of me doing so -- apart from the failed attempts at smearing me. If there's unflattering stuff about him on the internet it's because his own bad behaviour was recorded and commented upon.

                    The only way claims made about an individual will ever stand up is if they're caught in the act on video or sound recording, there are screenshots or links to tweets or blog posts they've made, or the individuals making those claims either use their own names or go legal so their claims can be examined.

                    Random 4Chan types spouting off will always be ignored because they're simply not credible if there's no way to verify their claims.

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

                    • icon
                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 6 Dec 2019 @ 7:25am

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

                      "Your own conduct determines what others think of you. "

                      I believe that is EXACTLY why he wants to make sure others won't know of his previous conduct. A person who regularly blows up and threatens people with death, legal armageddon, and the occasional rape in a ghoulishly gleeful fit of hysterical laughter only to then switch to another nick because that one is burned...

                      ...doesn't strike me as a person who believes it is a good thing that people can evaluate their prior conduct in any way.

                      "If there's unflattering stuff about him on the internet it's because his own bad behaviour was recorded and commented upon. "

                      I have the theory that the reason he's so opposed to 230 is that under his real name there will be stuff written by White (popehat), Mike (TD), or possibly a court condemnation.

                      And that is why he feels so much personal outrage over the fact that you can't just SLAPP a platform or ISP and force them to block information searches on a given individual.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:03am

          Re: Re:

          Courts in every country other than the US recognize this

          Pont to all the lawsuits in other countries that are forcing the search engines and social media sites to proactively filter user posting less they get sued.

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

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:22am

          Re: Re:

          Well, unfortunately for you, we’re in the US. Other countries’ jurisprudence is completely irrelevant here.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:34am

          Re: Re:

          Bro you keep repeating that bullshit like it magically haven’t been debunked about four dozen times already. What’s up next on the Cryin lyin Jhon tour schedule. Impotent threats to the police and or media followed by a light dose of rape threats and general harassment and stalking I should imagine.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 10:59pm

            Re: Re: Re:

            I was told there would be a "IP addresses prove who defamed the President" on this Jhon Herrick Smith tour. I bought the "landlords are shitty people who creep on female tenants" and "landlords suffer because 230 lets people look up their information online and call them shitty" package! I had to sit through a whole mailing list for this! Worst Jhon Smith financial advice package EVER.

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 8:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I was told there would be a "IP addresses prove who defamed the President" on this Jhon Herrick Smith tour."

              Hey, your fault for not googling bobmail's reviews. They bombed him pretty quickly, you know, which is probably why he's so damn angry about google being able to show people his name.

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

        • icon
          Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 5:40am

          Re: Re:

          For foreseeable harm they could be sued.

          Nope. Actual harm or nothing doing. You failed to learn that from my documented, proven experience.

          Distributor liability deals with the act of SPREADING libel, which is a separate harm from publishing it, a harm that had to be immunized by Section 230 (otherwise no need for the law). Courts in every country other than the US recognize this but "Stephen" knows better.

          Nonsense! The "harm" that was "immunized" by Section 230 was from being sued for deleting content that the ISP didn't want there. Do stop lying, Jhon.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 8:16am

          Re: Re:

          "Courts in every country other than the US recognize this but "Stephen" knows better."

          Nope.

          EVERY other nation in the G20 save possibly Australia knows better or has other protections which immunize infrastructure and search engines.

          And you know this full well and are just flat-out lying, Bobmail. Again.

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:37am

      Re:

      artists have to take matters into their own hands, by exercising their right to draw up individual contracts which serve the same purpose.

      If that were true, then all successful artists would be doing it.

      This is the patronage model that destroys mass distribution of entertainment

      Yep mass entertainment is totally dead. It just doesn't exist any more thanks to section 230. And you're smoking what now?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 4:32am

    Insufficient Recompense

    "Except that customers who have refused to sign the NDA have reported getting full refunds of their purchases without further explanation."

    In addition to the ticket price, I would have incurred travel expenses, parking fees, loss of time, and mental anguish. Since there was no mention of an NDA by ticket-booking agency, I have been defrauded by Davidson and might have additional claims against the ticket-seller. Since everyone who bought tickets was subject to the same extortionate mistreatment, could it be class action time?

    Seriously tho', this wipe has been spiraling for a while. Now that he's set his own tail on fire on the way down, let's just get out the popcorn and treat the crash and burn of his career as comedy (of the sad clown type) better than his act.

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

    • identicon
      Call me Al, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:20am

      Re: Insufficient Recompense

      It raises an interesting question.

      Did they provide sufficient time to allow for such a legal document to be properly read and understood before the performance was due to start.

      Many venues get stroppy with customers who are late and don't let them in after the performance start time. Mostly entirely understandable.

      If I turned up with 5 - 10 minutes to spare before I had to be there per the ticket document and was greeted with a long NDA then I may well pass the start time before I'm finished and happy to sign. If they leave insufficient time there then surely they should be on the hook for more than just a refund as you note.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 9:02pm

        Re: Insufficient Recompense

        • Did they provide sufficient time to allow for such a legal document to be properly read and understood before the performance was due to start. *

        If you need to retain a lawyer at a few hundred dollars an hour just to decipher whatever they're trying to coerce you into signing? No, an appointment to see an attorney has to be made days or weeks in advance - and who's paying for this?

        The ticket sale is already a binding contract. One party adding terms or conditions to something which is already a done deal is a fundamental breach of that contract. Let the buffalo chips fall where they may.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 4:56am

    Be our guest???

    “Individual is or will be a guest of the Company at a performance event..."

    Nothing says 'Be our guest' like charging admission!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:11am

      Re: Be our guest???

      Be our guest. Put our magic to the test.

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

    • icon
      Tanner Andrews (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 3:41am

      Re: Be our guest???

      Individual is or will be a guest of the Company at a performance event

      Umm, no. Charging admission suggests that it is a business transaction in a commercial venue which the purchaser is urged to visit. ``Individual'' is thus more likely to be a business invitee, to whom the greatest duty of care is owed.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:14am

    So did I attend and sign an NDA or am I lying about attending?

    [So if I tweet (or comment here...) about attending SNL's Pete Davidson 'comedy' show at the Sydney Goldstein Theater in San Francisco and how much it SUCKED plus that I was forced to sign a bogus NDA - will that trigger a violation of the NDA? And would it actually be enforceable against me?]

    So I went to SNL's Pete Davidson 'comedy' show at the Sydney Goldstein Theater in San Francisco and it SUCKED! Lame jokes and awkward delivery - I almost felt sorry for the guy that he felt his show was ready for an actual audience. Plus, I was forced to sign a completely bogus NDA for no consideration. Why not make it "a billion dollars!" ?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 5:39am

    give him what he deserves, ie, no one attending his 'shows'! then tell him what he also deserves, to 'FUCK OFF'!

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 6:23am

    Right on cue at 14:30 of his fame.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 7:24am

    I find it of interest that the cries for using laws of other countries here in the us, comes from those who hate immigrants.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 9:02am

    I am perfectly willing to sign Pete Davidson's NDA. Assuming he pays me to attend his performance, of course.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 2:49pm

    The Real Reason for the NDA

    Software goes through a development process. One part of that process involves beta testing by users who aren't employed by the company building the software. These users provide feedback to the company. The company uses the feedback to improve the software before it becomes generally available. Comedians work through a process to create a show used on a tour or a Netflix special. Part of the process involves testing new material in small venues to receive feedback from the audience. This is not new. The cultural phenomenon of "your joke offended me, my feelings were hurt by your words, that's the same thing as a violent assault on my person, and now I have PTSD" is also not new, but it has been amplified to a pernicious level because social media has created a generation of loud narcissists who receive attention by pretending to be victimized. It's unreasonable for a normal, healthy human being to be personally offended by an edgy joke. Particularly a joke that is in the process of being refined before being made available to a broader audience. Those who do seek attention by claiming victim status are walking around with a set of DSM psych billing codes and should seek help from a mental health professional who can easily pick out which codes apply. Comedians need people to lock up their phones in pouches and sign NDAs because their process for creating a show has become a high risk activity. They don't have bosses, but still risk being fired/"cancelled" by one asshole tweeting some nonsense about a joke that ruined their life, or (better yet) claiming to be offended for some imaginary "historically marginalized group" in general. Put simply, Robin Williams would not be able to work today because he was too good at imitating the accents of different cultures. Even though 99.9% of everyone would laugh, one disturbed person would have taken him out by now. EDKH.

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 4 Dec 2019 @ 3:18pm

      NDAs for beta-test comedy

      Before Louis CK's reputation caught up to him besmirching the reputations of comedians and perverts worldwide, he would also beta-test material in small-audience showings. His method was to call up the pirates distributing the content and ask them to take it down because that material's not ready yet. And they would.

      Mandating an NDA at ticket-collection seems to be like one of those horrid DRMs that hurts the paying audience without thwarting the pirates, though this one also prohibits reviews, from which one can infer the quality is poor.

      I suppose they can do like old companies and offer test material at discount rates advertised as test material. At that point, weird contracts like NDAs are expected.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 4:02pm

      Re: The Real Reason for the NDA

      There’s so much bullshit in that post that I can smell it through my monitor bro.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2019 @ 8:48pm

    Consumer Review Fairness Act

    Isn't this a violation of the Consumer Review Fairness Act? Techdirt had an article about this law a while back. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161206/07004036204/law-passed-to-protect-customers-non-disparage ment-clauses-other-ridiculous-restrictions.shtml

    It appears to be a form contract (imposed with no meaningful chance for the consumer to negotiate). And it prohibits people from leaving reviews, which is a "covered communication".

    Under this law, the contract would therefore be "void from the inception" and offering such a contract is "unlawful", with the FTC or state attorney generals empowered to take action.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2019 @ 2:53am

    An NDA?

    “the individual shall not give any interviews, offer any opinions or critiques, or otherwise participate by any means or in any form whatsoever"

    Um. That's not an NDA. An NDA is "this is one of the jokes he told". This is a total suppression of free speech.

    This NDA is itself a joke.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2019 @ 10:37am

    Misreading

    "Want To See Pete Davidson Do Standup? There's An NDA You Have To Sign First..."

    My initial reading of that title didn't put me into a universe where a comedian would (p)require a purportedly, really-and-truly binding NDA as a condition of admission to his show.

    I assumed Davidson had come up with wacky NDA satire, some sort of performance hijinks to parody the idea of NDA, that he thought would amuse his audience.

    Boy, was I wrong! Not as wrong as Davidson, thank goodness, but it'd be pretty hard for anyone to THAT wrong.

    Let's face it, this was just Pete's way of attempting to dodge the inevitable review-boos that would follow his attempt to get paid first-tier rates for presenting ill-prepared, half-baked, new material.

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

  • icon
    Popeye2 (profile), 5 Dec 2019 @ 8:35pm

    Simple question

    Does he issue immediate and complete refunds?

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


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)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

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

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

Close

Email This

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