Re: Re: Yes, "teh internets" has matured and will be regulated.
Consider the financial sector. They are charged with guarding against lawlessness within their ecosystem. Why? Because they're the only ones who can effectively and efficiently monitor that ecosystem. Otherwise you would have total anarchy courtesy of those misusing the system.
Many might question that claim about the financial sector, but... more to the point: the idea that the tech industry can "effectively and efficiently monitor" the ecosystem is not just wrong, it's nearly totally ignorant of how technology and copyright law work.
Platforms can tell what content is there, but it is not at all easy to determine whether or not it is "infringing." If you think it is, you're wrong. Hell, the very company being complained about here, YouTube, has put hundreds of millions of dollars into its own attempt at a technological solution and it sucks.
Remove the safe harbor and you've guaranteed two things: 1. YouTube is the last company in this space because no other company can take on the millions to build such a system and 2. Most companies just shut off user generated content.
The collateral damage from such a move is insane.
Like the owners and managers of the financial system who profit by their ownership and management of that system- the players in the internet ecosystem cannot simply wash their hands in the Holy Water and claim "safe harbor". While the Internet guys are not on the hook for every wrongdoing by a user of the ecosystem (any more than bankers) they have largely turned a blind eye and hide behind "safe harbor".
Bullshit. That claim about "turned a blind eye" is 100% bullshit. You are either ignorant or lying. Almost every platform goes above and beyond the safe harbors already in policing content and they still get attacked and blamed. None of them "turn a blind eye" on the issue, because they know to do so removes safe harbors and gets them massive liability.
IMO if you are one of the players that makes a business ecosystem run, you have a duty to interdict unlawful behavior.
Again, this is just wrong. You have a very weak understanding of the law. And while you mocked my statements about Ford and AT&T above, you are saying they should be responsible? Are you nuts?
In a world where you have hundreds of millions of people *communicating* with each other, demanding that technology companies wave a magic wand and stop infringement (which, again, is only a tiny part of services like YouTube) is impossible. You're only saying it's necessary because you know it's impossible and the people who pay your salary HATE having to compete with those fucking amateurs.
So you want to kill them off. Disgusting. You attack free expression and the platforms that enable it just so that some gatekeepers can try to regain some control over an ecosystem so they get all the profits. Sick.
At the end of the day, without commonsense, industry-designed regulation to prevent wanton looting of intellectual property the internet ecosystem is going to have regulation forced up their asses piecemeal by judges and lawmakers around the globe that will be a complete disaster by its design (or lack thereof).
You have so little of a clue it's almost pathetic.
This industry should be begging for regulation of their own writing to forestall the inevitable.
We have regulation. We have the DMCA safe harbors. And you complain that now you want to get rid of them.
The lesson learned from SOPA should have been that alternative regulation (through industry agreements and collateral actions like six strikes) will sprout in its place.
As expected, you learned the wrong lesson. I'm afraid you're going to have go back to school again the next time your friends attempt to do something stupid. Don't worry. Millions of teachers are ready to teach you again. And again. Until you get it.
Vox isn't left? I can't let that one go. Just looking at what's on today's front page of Vox, you'd have to be fairly blind to not see some leftward bias. The stories Vox chooses to cover support causes championed by the left (how great Obamacare is, the evil Koch brothers, etc.). That's just reporting the news? So MSNBC must be your favorite cable channel for "just reporting the news".
Are you even remotely aware of Tim Lee's history? He's the one who wrote the article, and he is not, in any way imaginable, a "left-leaning" reporter.
Either way WHO GIVES A FUCK about red team/blue team? This isn't about that.
Second, It's not just about trade, but that's been true of trade pacts for decades. Nothing new here.
Well, yes, there's a lot new here, but mainly the whole point of the article was that some supposed "expert" insisted it WAS about trade. So, clearly plenty of people still think it is, which is why I wrote this article.
Not sure what your complaint is other than that you have some weird issue with identifying which "team" people are on.
The author uses Vox (left) and the Cato Institute (right) to justify his conclusions?
Vox is not left or right. It's just a news publication. Cato is libertarian, not "right." Either way, the point was not about the ideological leanings of anyone, but the actual content. Do you have concerns about that?
Hard to believe that the AFL-CIO is publicly against it when their real plan is to use it to further their anti-democratic aims to force through regulations.
In the past, organized labor was very effective in using these deals -- but haven't been able to get their ideas into TPP this time around, which is why they're so against it.
Overall I think it was a weak article. Anyone who reads any major news outlet (WaPo, BBC, CBS - were just a few sites that explained the issue more clearly than this article) would know that free trade in today's world encompasses much more than things like getting Japan to open their markets to US autos or agricultural goods.
But most people still assume it's about *trade*. And it's not. That's the point.
Say what? They are being worked on right now, well into a democratic presidency. One who promised transparency but has kept the negotiations secret. This first sentence is so full of itself as to make me question the whole article.
Yes, they're being pushed by a Democratic executive, but nearly all of the Democrats in Congress (with just a few exceptions) are against it. On the whole, the Democratic party is mostly now against these trade deals.
Or heck, just about any other in the overall list.
Okay. So, Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube. So was Jack Conte. And he's great and has now built up an entire separate company helping to fund tons of creative folks. So do we say that Bieber and Conte cancel each other out or do you realize that a single example proves nothing?
There are tons of musicians using the internet to do amazing things, from Jack Conte to Zoe Keating to Amanda Palmer to Alex Day to Steve Lawson to Jonathan Coulton to Matthew Ebel... and I could go on and on and on. And all of them have one thing in common: they used the internet to their advantage and realized that the "traditional" recording industry had no place for them. But in using the internet they could find their audience, connect with that audience and do something amazing (and make a living too!).
If you're really trying to go down the path of arguing that the internet has been bad for *music* you're going to lose so badly that you're going to look even more ridiculous than you already do.
I know, I know, you think your clever and you're arguing on an internet forum where everyone here is an ignorant fool. I'll just give you a heads up: your assumptions are wrong and you'd be wise to reconsider your path before we make you look even more foolish.
I see you still won't answer my questions. Interesting.
MPAA has been consistent in its support of fair use using the common definition of the term. I think you understand a lot about the lobbying process and some of what the issues are. But I guess you don't understand the nuances here, and the way the term "fair use" has been misapplied to support piracy enablers.
Ok. I will give you a new question (will you answer it?): How, exactly, is fair use being applied in trade agreements like the TPP to "support piracy enablers"?
And yes, it is hypocritical to latch onto illegally obtained private communications, to take the contents at face value despite no knowledge of the source and the integrity of the text, and then to attack me for remaining anonymous.
I did not attack you for remaining anonymous. As I said, that's your right. It's why we all you to comment that way and also why I will not reveal your identity, even though I know who you are. I just wanted to see if you were willing to put your name behind your comments so that the others in this thread would be aware of your past and present affiliations. You chose not to. No sweat.
Surely if we can bring down Hollywood, everyone will be very happy.
I have no desire to "bring down Hollywood." Quite the opposite. I wish Hollywood would wake up already and realize that fighting innovation and treating its best fans and consumers like criminals is counterproductive.
Just like we did to the music industry.
The *music* industry is thriving. The legacy recording industry, perhaps not as much. But more music is being made today than ever before, more people are listening to more music and (this is the part you don't seem to realize) more people are spending MORE MONEY on music than ever before.
Just because some old gatekeepers have been cut out of that system is no reason to fret. Well, unless you work for a legacy gatekeeper.
I'll put my name on this as soon as you put the name of your source on your article - the name of the Sony employee who leaked the e-mails.
My source was, as you know, Wikileaks. I'm not sure if you think you're being clever here, but as seen by the response from others, it just makes you look kinda silly. That's fairly typical for people who think they're clever.
Anyway, no big deal. I know who you are. I thought it was only fair to ask you if you wanted to reveal your affiliations. You don't have to. People will make their own assumptions.
I'm sorry you don't understand. But I also see that you are convinced you've uncovered some "shocking truth" about MPAA deception. There is none.
No, I don't think it's a shocking truth at all. I think it just highlights and confirms what we've know all along. The MPAA says one thing publicly, but another behind closed doors. That's not at all shocking, but it is a truth.
In the meantime, I note that you still haven't answered my questions. Perhaps there are reasons for this, but let's try to do it this way. I'll write out and number a set of new questions, and let's see if you'll actually answer them.
1. If the MPAA truly believed in fair use, then why wouldn't it want fair use to be a part of our trade agreements with other countries?
2. If the MPAA truly supported fair use, then why would it call the proposal to include fair use in the TPP "controversial"?
3. Why did the MPAA directly fight *against* Australia and the UK implementing fair use if they truly support fair use?
If you're serious about having a discussion, you can start there.
Nice deflection. I will note, for the record, that you did not answer any of my direct questions.
The gist of the anti-SOPA movement was "don't let the government censor what you can access on the internet". The mainstream media ate that up and regurgitated it. You don't think so?
No, that was not the gist of it. The gist of it was "don't pass a stupid copyright law that will have massive unintended consequences, including messing up some of the basics of how the internet works." There was very little "anti-gov't" sentiment involved.
I don't mind if you disagree with the MPAA position. But the MPAA has been consistent when it comes to fair use. I think, again, when the context and meaning of the term "fair use" is changed, you can create the illusion that the MPAA changed its position. But that's not being honest.
Again, this is simply not true. How has the "context and meaning" of the term fair use different in the two examples above. It is not. It is the same "fair use" being discussed. In fact, even if I try to twist and squint to look at what you're actually saying, your argument makes no sense. The "fair use" provisions that were put into the TPP involved using the Berne three-step test, a highly problematic rule that was supposed to be a floor for fair use, but which some (like the MPAA) have tried to pretend is a ceiling.
So, at *worst* the fair use mentioned in the TPP was a very, very, very limited version of fair use. And if you are who I think you are, you also know damn well that the MPAA was actively involved in making sure that Australia failed to include fair use in its copyright reform proposal.
To argue that the MPAA is in favor of fair use is clearly a lie.
The bottom line is what the intent of the language regarding fair use being referred to here is. That's what people should debate. There are two sides, and we can discuss as adults. But creating a narrative about the MPAA or Dodd flipping positions is disingenuous and detracts from the crux of the issue.
It's not about Dodd flipping positions. It's about the MPAA saying one thing publicly, while saying exactly the opposite in private to politicians.
You know this is happening. Why can't you admit it?
And again, I put my name on this. Will you put yours so people can know who you are making these claims?
I don't know where to begin. The TPP text was drafted over 5+ years, involving hundreds of lobbyists, corporate policy executives, industry leaders, government officials, and others.
In secret. That's not how democracy works.
Also, the text was leaked online numerous times over these years. The contents of the "state secret" document, as you call it, were common knowledge.
No, parts of the TPP, always a few months outdated, have leaked. But not the entire thing. And if we're talking about the IP section, by "numerous" you mean "twice."
As for the rest - well I think it's pointless here to review the history of private-public sector IP negotiations across industries in recent years. If you are well-versed on the topic - or even if your understanding is limited to well-publicized battles such as SOPA - you know what Dodd is referring to here. I'll give you a hint - the ISP's do not have a seat at the TPP negotiating table. What players do you think would sneak in the last minute fair use language, and why?
Those interested in protecting the free speech rights of the public? After all, the Supreme Court has noted how important fair use is in protecting free speech.
Yes, yes, I know what you're getting at. You think lobbyists for those nefarious search engines are trying to sneak in "fair use" because it's been so damaging.
But, that just makes the point I was making. The MPAA is lying about supporting fair use.
And finally - you want to refer to Dodd as a "shill". Well, then what do you call the rest of the players? Are the hundreds of other lobbyists and policy execs. working on TPP doing so pro-bono, representing the voice of the customer?
I didn't refer to him as a shill. But the rest of your comment, once again, sort or reinforces the point, doesn't it? Why is the TPP only being negotiated behind closed doors by lobbyists and policy people, rather than having the documents publicly out there for debate?
The reason, of course, was admitted by Froman's predecessor Ron Kirk, who said that if the public knew what was in the TPP it would never approve it. You're right that lobbyists are driving the process. We agree. And we agree that's problematic.
But that's unrelated to the question of the MPAA's dislike of fair use, which is what we were discussing here.
There was a coordinated effort on the part of certain lobbyists to insert language into the TPP that would indemnify them in any enablement of online piracy.
First of all, which "certain lobbyists" do you mean? Could you explain more? Because Dodd's letter says no such thing. He does talk about the safe harbors, but only in the idea that they would be weakened, not strengthened in the TPP.
Furthermore, *current US law* already indemnifies platforms, because *that makes sense* and is part of the reason why the internet has been so successful. You don't blame Ford because someone used a Ford as a getaway car. If you did, Ford would hobble their cars for the millions of law abiding users. In the same way, you don't hold YouTube liable for some users infringing, as they would be forced to hobble YouTube for all of the law abiding users. It would massively stifle the internet.
Dodd here was correctly defending the consistent stance of the MPAA related to this specific definition of fair use.
No, he was not. He was arguing that there should be NO FAIR USE in the TPP. That is not a consistent stance, nor the "specific definition" of fair use the MPAA is using. The MPAA has consistently fought back against fair use expanding to any other country, despite claiming it supports it in the US.
In the meantime, considering the document is secret, how is it that you claim to know what language was being inserted?
Just because a video is newsworthy doesn't mean that showing it is automatically fair use. For instance, there is this case, involving the airing of the Reginald Denny beating during the 1992 LA riots. In that case, the court found that the TV stations were liable because they had aired the entire 3-minute video without commentary. It is clear from the language of the ruling that a shorter clip may have been acceptable under fair use.
We actually discuss a *later* ruling concerning the Reginald Denny video (and how Court TV used it) in the article above, noting that the appeals court found it to be fair use.
Why don't they just get a warrant from a judge? If it is evidence, get a warrant.
Well, technically, they can't. The SEC only has subpoena authority. The DOJ is needed to get a warrant. But the issue here is over who they can subpoena for what information and how it impacts the 4th amendment.
Assuming you are from NY or that general area of the NE, my familiarity with the aero industry suggests that your father was possibly at one time in Grumman's employ at its Long Island facility.
A reasonably good guess, but not really true. Technically, my father was employed by Grumman for about 2 years in the 1960s, but he was out of there by the 1970s working for other aerespace/defense contractors. The friends of his that I have talked about this with never worked at Grumman at all.
The government cannot do anything right. NEVER. EVER. EVER.
First Amendment? They fucked that up? I'd argue they did pretty good on that one.
Section 230 of the DMCA? I'd argue they did pretty good on that one.
Both actually involve keeping things free and open and that's what these new rules are designed to do as well.
In other words, yes, the government often messes stuff up, but they can do a good job in clearing out safe areas for free expression and innovation, which is exactly what the new rules are designed to do.