Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: Always A Gatekeeper: RIAA Backs .music Proposal… If It's Only Limited To 'Accredited' Musicians

    Karl ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2012 @ 10:09am

    Far Further vs. Roussos

    This is actually not as big a deal as you might think.

    The person who came up with the idea for .music, Constantine Roussos, basically said he would do the same thing:

    Music community members will verified through our .MUSIC-accredited "Community Member Organizations (CMOs)" which will serve as trusted gatekeepers of .MUSIC domain registrations, ensuring the safe, secure and responsible launch of .MUSIC, preventing gaming, piracy and malicious conduct as well as protecting their members' .MUSIC brand trademarks from being cybersquatted or abused. Accredited CMOs for .MUSIC include:

    - Music Trade Organizations
    - Digital Aggregators
    - Government Arts Councils & Music Export Offices
    - Accredited Music Communities

    CMOs are invite-only and only reserved for trusted organizations that have a history of activities that serve the music community and their members.
    - .MUSIC (dotMusic) Supporters

    (Also, it is a bit ironic that the RIAA complains about people "stealing" the fruits of musicians' labor, yet has no problem "stealing" the fruits of Roussos' labor.)

    Though it doesn't mention it in the article, a list of "accredited organizations" can be found on Far Further's web site. It is not limited to RIAA clients; it also includes PRO's like ASCAP, BMI, and SEAC.

    Now, that still wouldn't be enough to represent the global music industry (in particular, America is rather over-represented). There is no mention of TuneCore or Jamendo, for example. Simply glancing at my own collection, over half the music I own is not produced by members of a PRO (and certainly most were not when they were starting out). That does seem to make it more of a gated community geared towards older, already-established acts.

    The kicker, however, is SoundExchange. They are an accredited organization, according to Far Further. They are also required, by law, to collect digital royalties for all musicians (whether you want them to or not). Registering with them is free, so if that's the only barrier to entry, then it's not such a "walled garden" after all.

    ...Having said all that: Is this anything an artist would actually want to do?
    In addition, the content of .music web sites would be policed in a similar way to .xxx or .cat, with regular spidering to ensure the content does not break the rules.

    ?We?re definitely looking at content, and besides the vetting process, in the registrant agreement there?ll be a warrant you?re not going to violate anyone?s intellectual property rights,? said Styll.

    ?We?re retaining the right to conduct searches,? he said. ?If we find evidence of infringing activity we?ll give you the opportunity to correct that, or we can take down the site.?

    I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want major media industries conducting searches on my website, looking for an excuse to shut me down.

    Furthermore, with anything like this (which is more a "service" than an actual domain), there are questions about the rules. Would you have to stream music in a DRM-laden format? Would you be prevented from releasing CC music? If you put your own music on the Pirate Bay, would they be allowed to remove your site? How much are you allowed to integrate other services (e.g. Soundcloud), and how easy would it be? Would you even be allowed to run your own backend (e.g. install Drupal rather than whatever web software they're using)?

    And why oh why would this walled garden be in any way preferable to something like BandCamp, which pretty much accomplishes exactly the same thing, without needing the approval of a board of censors?

    My predictions for how this will turn out:

    - The .music gTLD will move forward. Roussos will be squeezed out (among other reasons, his views on stopping piracy are 180 degrees opposite the legacy players').

    - The RIAA membership will set up .music sites "on behalf of" their artists, and will control the content of those sites. Artists won't have much say in the matter, since they're not the rights holders. Still, the RIAA believes, for some reason, that this will make other musicians want to join up.

    - Musicians, like anyone else, are "bandwagon jumpers" when it comes to signing up for online entities. They will wait for everyone else to get a .music domain first. Nobody does, and .music becomes the de facto location for the RIAA alone.

    - It will get a few hits at first, but peter out rather quickly. Nobody trusts the RIAA as far as they can throw them, and nobody wants to be limited to "official" sites alone. Not even artists.

    - As it's failing, Far Further and its affiliates will demand that search engines place .music sites at the top of their search hits. Search engines refuse, because that's crazy.

    - As it's failing even more, Far Further et. al. will demand that search engines remove every single link from artist searches that don't lead to a .music site. Search engines will refuse, because that's even crazier.

    - Far Further et. al. will sue Google. (They won't sue Bing or any other search engine, naturally.)

    - After years of costly litigation, Google will win. Public statements from the RIAA about how "Google profits from piracy" will follow.

    - By then, every artist on .music will have said "eff this" and moved back to their .com domains.

    - Or just stayed on BandCamp.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2012 @ 08:23am

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

    Suzanne - I'm going to reply to various posts in this one. Hope you don't mind.

    I based it on the most common discussions I had read here and other places. I found many of them not very persuasive. My point was that if you want to over turn IP laws and make a case for the average citizen, you need more firepower. In fact, I think it's fine if that is your goal. But do a better job at arguing it.

    I know for a fact that I personally expressed some of these concerns to you before you wrote the article. You did not even mention them. I've also been surfing reading other blogs and sites about this issue, and nearly every criticism of copyright laws has to do with 1.) ridiculous enforcement (suing users, seizing domains); 2.) regional restrictions, DRM, and consumer restrictions generally; 3.) outrageous copyright lenghths. Almost nobody gave any of the arguments you mentioned.

    Result? You were arguing against a straw man.

    I do not think you are lying or ignorant. I think this is a case of confirmation bias. You are not convinced that IP laws should be scaled back, so you only heard the arguments you wanted to hear.

    So, don't say that any of us need to "do a better job at arguing it" when you won't listen to the arguments.

    And, so far, the 1500+ sites that participated in the blackout seem to be firepower enough. Look at what's happening with ACTA, especially in Europe.

    In fact, the biggest issue facing IP reformers is not that we're making bad arguments. It's that we were never allowed a forum to make them. The bills, laws, and treaties were all passed behind closed doors, out of the eyes of the public (and any industry that wasn't in the RIAA/MPAA). In a sense SOPA/PROTECT IP were the best thing to happen to copyright reformers. It was litigation that was so awful, that it negatively affected even those who don't care about IP at all.

    What I see happening is that Apple, Google, and Facebook are moving into Walmart and McDonald's territory in terms of image.

    Apple? Absolutely. Facebook? Probably. Not so much Google, at least not in the eyes of the public.

    If anything the SOPA/PROTECT IP protests made Google look much better than before. People hated these bills, even before the blackout. The blackout only made people aware of the issue, and once they were, they were absolutely livid.

    As this article points out, the new system looks a lot like the old one in terms of power dynamics.

    It's an interesting article. You left this part out:

    The contours of the audience paying attention to a policy usually determine whether that policy ultimately passes. When a broader public gets wind of a crude bill that would transparently benefit a narrow public, that bill is typically rendered toxic and thus politically finished.

    It used to be the case that for this to happen, the mainstream media had to be involved in calling attention to the travesty. Those days are disappearing, and this is generally a good thing. By lowering the barriers to entry, the Internet has the potential to make political activism more democratic than ever before, and the SOPA turnaround is proof that it can work politically to engage a broad crowd in short order.

    I understand their concern. But, frankly, I think it's completely overblown. It's rooted in the fact that prior communications mediums were controlled by gatekeepers. Newspapers, television, and radio are not democratic in any way, shape or form. The Internet is. Google, Wikipedia, and the rest simply cannot be gatekeepers to the internet, even if they wanted to be. If their claims are bogus, there will always be somebody calling them out - and the internet is always willing to go viral with that info.

    It's also not very accurate about the protests themselves. Not once, for example, do they acknowledge that the blackout idea did not come from any of the companies they mentioned. In fact, those companies only jumped on board after a grassroots movement had already started.

    Here's another, and I think better, article about the tech industry's lobbying efforts:
    The stop SOPA campaign is also noteworthy because it was not directed by a grand design launched by the large companies, but came from the bottom up, from small companies and independent Internet activists.

    They started a wildfire of opposition with companies such as Google and Facebook adding their voice as the movement reached a crescendo.
    - SOPA defeat a victory for tech, but influence will remain muted

    And as for the tech industry stepping up its lobbying efforts? According to MapLight, the tech industry was still outspent nine to one on SOPA.

    So, you are absolutely right to be concerned about lobbying efforts. You are wrong if you are singling out the tech industry.

    You know, the privacy arguments along the lines of "If you don't want your information shared, don't use the sites," isn't a lot different than, "if you don't want to pay a fine for illegal downloads, don't do it."

    Fair point. On the other hand, most sites (Google, Facebook, even Myspace) have tons of options to limit sharing of information that you may or may not want private.

    And if those sites have privacy policies you don't like, you're not forced to use them - because there is tremendous competition. That's not true of "illegal downloads" - if you don't want to support the RIAA, for example, you can't go elsewhere (legally) for a song on one of their clients' labels. They have a monopoly. Google (and tech industries in general) do not. This makes them orders of magnitude more invested in keeping good faith relations with the general public.

    But you're right that it is a concern. It was (and is) a concern with Facebook's behind-the-scenes data gathering. It was certainly a concern with Google Wave (the program, which folded almost immediately, that prompted an EFF lawsuit against Google).

    What's also true is that the privacy issues are often blown out of proportion. The bit last year about Google streetcars gathering data is an example. Also, keep in mind that sometimes these issues are deliberate attacks by competitors - such as when Facebook hired a PR firm to smear Google's privacy image.

    But if you want the largest threats to privacy, you need to look to Washington. For example, the "Internet Snooping Bill" (it actually has the unrepentently dishonest name of "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act") would require, by law, that all internet providers store records of user data and IP addresses, to be used by law enforcement for whatever purpose it wants.

    Its main sponsor? You guessed it - Lamar Smith, the same guy behind SOPA. The same guy who said the only reason anyone was against these bills is because its opponents are "somehow benefiting by directing customers to these foreign websites" or "profit from selling advertising to these foreign websites."

    Such bills are not new. In 1991, there was the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, a bill that would require law enforcement access to plaintext emails and outlaw encryption. It was the primary reason Phil Zimmerman created PGP. Its author? None other than our current Vice President, Joe Biden. The same Joe Biden who held a closed-door "IP Roundtable" to discuss copyright and the Internet - but only invited media conglomerates and high-level law enforcement officials, and completely left out anyone from the tech industry, public interest groups, or academics. Then had the unmitigated gall to claim "all stakeholders were present."

    I am not suggesting that the RIAA, MPAA, or any other "big content" industries are behind these particular bills. I'm not even sure they support them. I am saying that "big content" hates the Internet and the tech industry, and are funding politicians on that common ground. When that happens, they end up funding invasions of privacy by the government - at far, far worse levels than anything Google, Facebook, and so forth are even capable of.

    All of your concerns are valid. They are, however, misdirected. At least right now.

    This post is about why Google is getting attention for lobbying against PIPA/SOPA when other companies and other organizations were also against it.

    Google is not getting attention for it. The pro-SOPA forces are trying to throw attention onto them. It is designed to discredit anyone who was against SOPA and PROTECT IP, by painting them as "pawns" of Google.

    These are the same people who call Ron Wyden "Google's pet senator," despite the fact that his #1 campaign contributor is Nike, a supporter of both bills.

    You're right about the reason they chose Google: they are big - meaning they are successful. In their eyes, any company that is successful on the Internet is stealing from them. More importantly, Google is a threat. They keep winning court cases (e.g. against Viacom and Perfect 10), and they have enough money to actually fight back.

    Witness Lamar Smith's comments about SOPA opposition. You think it wasn't a subtle threat against Google?

    But this "attention" isn't coming from the public. It is, and always was, a political ploy, pure spin and propaganda. At least as far as SOPA is concerned.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2012 @ 12:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I was outlining arguments from least persuasive to most persuasive.

    You also left out most of the arguments altogether. There is no mention of DRM, region restrictions, laws against "jailbreaking" cell phones, laws making it illegal to view DVD's in Linux, or other anti-consumer practices that copyright currently allows.

    There is no mention of Veoh's elimination by lawsuit, the near-impossiblility of startups to license music, the bogus lawsuits against Google and YouTube, or other costs to media-related companies that happen when you grant a single industry a monopoly on culture. No mention of the patent quagmire surrounding cell phones, damaging software patents, Intellectual Ventures, or the tremendous costs IP places on the economy in general.

    There is no mention whatsoever of the RIAA lawsuits, bogus takedown notices, Righthaven lawsuits, domain seizures, or other ways that copyright allows for the abuse of the court system, and the elimination of due process and free speech rights.

    No mention of Monsanto's lawsuits against farmers, patents on genetically-modified food, drug companies trying to eliminate generics, "grey market" drugs, or any other way IP laws damage public health (especially in third-world countries).

    And no mention of how higher-ups from the worst IP industries are being granted government positions at an alarming rate (such as when Monsanto's VP was made senior adviser at the FDA, or how the Justice Department is staffed with RIAA lawyers in top positions).

    These are the major reasons that most people are against IP laws. And you didn't even mention them. It's like writing an article on people opposing drug laws, and saying they only want to smoke pot and do crack.

    I know IP issues aren't your major interest. I know that a lot of this was new to you when you wrote the article. But you really should have at least listened to the actual reasons people are against IP laws. As it is, you're just arguing against a straw man.

    I also know they have cut back recently.

    Where did you hear this? From what I've seen, they've increased spending on green energy:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-van-diggelen/googles-green-spending-sp_b_1095849.html

    But the privacy issues and the lobbying have taken the company down a notch in my mind.

    The privacy issues are why the EFF keeps suing Google. Personally, I think they're overblown, at least in this case. You don't want your info to be aggregated and used, don't put it on the web, simple as that.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2012 @ 02:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Mike has other companies/activities than just Techdirt, right?

    The ones I know about are Techdirt and the Insight Community (I believe, but don't know, that Step2 is part of the latter). His main source of income, from what he's said, is consulting. Many of his clients are artists and musicians. I don't know who they are, though.

    As for the IP laws, I did feel a strong case hadn't been made about why they have been bad

    As I pointed out in the comments, you were not listening to everyone. When your #1 reason is "I want stuff for free," you've already closed your ears.

    Personally, the #1 reason I don't like IP is because it is used almost exclusively against artists themselves, and supports an industry founded on indentured servitude. But that's just me.

    I also want DC to be supportive of clean tech. I hope Silicon Valley use its influence there, but I'm not sure it will.

    You really should take a gander at Google.org. That is the site for their official nonprofit organization. A major focus is on green energy. Other efforts include womens' education, STEM education, and eliminating human trafficking.

    What I think is a stretch is to suggest anti-PIPA/SOPA forces will now become Republicans.

    I personally will never vote Republican. Unfortunately, it was largely the Democrats who contributed to this, by claiming it was Republicans who derailed SOPA and PROTECT IP. If the Democrats don't distance themselves from the bills' backers, and quickly, I'm afraid the Republicans may get a few fence-sitters.

    Individual Democrats, of course, I would be more than willing to see lose over this issue. Biden is one guy who should have been voted out decades ago - pity we can't do that now.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2012 @ 02:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    Of course they're astro-turfs!

    Of course, you have absolutely zero evidence to back this up, other than that some of the organizations that opposed SOPA and PROTECT IP were founded by tech guys.

    Even a cursory glance at their annual statements, which are public, show you're wrong. In the EFF's case, for example, a good number of donors are not in the tech industry at all.

    Yes, the Brin Wojcicki Foundation (which is not run by Google, but by one of its founders and his wife) did give money to the EFF and Wikipedia. You know who else they gave money to? The Michael J. Fox Foundation. In fact, they're giving 1000 times more to the Fox Foundation than they did to the EFF. By your logic, this means that the Fox Foundation is also "astroturfing" for Google.

    Furthermore, Wikipedia's discussion page - where their membership (not Wales) decided to black out the site - is still up, and right out in the open.

    Does Google have an interest in keeping the Internet open and largely unregulated? Yes. But so does everyone else who uses the Internet. This wasn't "orchestrated" by Google, or any other tech company. It was a popular reaction to unpopular bills.

    This should be obvious, as the Sunlight Foundation's own site shows the approval rating of both bills to be around 1%. That means 99 out of 100 people don't want them.

    Hell, even Peter Gabriel took his site down to protest them.

    Nor could Google or Facebook's "influence" explain the hundreds of thousands of people who protested in person against ACTA in Europe.

    And the idea that they have "paid networks"? Don't make me laugh. The only people who have "paid networks" are the traditional media industries, because traditional media is not open to the public, like the Internet is. And those media companies have consistently ignored the story.

    Now, perhaps you should retire to the ghetto of your own rapidly pro-IP blog, play some more Second Life, and only come here when you actually have a single shred of evidence to back up anything you say. Until you do, nobody here is buying what you're selling.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2012 @ 07:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    As for "Americans for Tax Reform,"

    It's also worth mentioning that ATR is associated with the Property Rights Alliance, "an advocacy organization dedicated to the protection of physical and intellectual property rights."

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2012 @ 07:36am

    What I am saying is that if you don't know the answer, there's no need to respond. I'm learning how sensitive a subject this is for those you who responded. It would have been more of a non-issue for me if there had been no "in defense of Mike" comments.

    Suzanne:

    The reason we're so touchy about it, is that the people making the "connection" between Mike and Google are the same people saying that the EFF is a "front" for Google, that the SOPA protests were orchestrated from withing Google's offices, and so forth. Bob is the loudest (and most crazy) of these people, but he's hardly the only one.

    When you figure in the fact that at least some of these A.C.'s have Washington D.C. IP addresses, you realize that it's part of an orchestrated smear campaign. These people may believe the smears, but smears they still are (or are supposed to be).

    This also usually comes in the form of accusing us commenters of being "duped," usually throwing in the phrase "Techdirt kool-aid." So, it is not just an attack on Mike, it's a personal attack on anyone who agrees with him.

    I don't think this is what you're saying, you just walked into the middle of an argument.

    Now, if you're really curious, Techdirt did a post about the summit that was hosted by Google:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100526/0142359581.shtml

    That is the only direct connection Techdirt has with Google, aside from AdSense (which pays next to nothing). Mike said so in one of his comments, but I couldn't find the actual comment to link to it.

    If you want to find out who is paying Mike, simply go to the Cases or Sponsor sections of the Insight Community site.

    By the way: Have you had a change of heart since you wrote your rather straw-man blog post about why people don't like IP laws?

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2012 @ 12:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    The US Tennis Association, I believe, is a trade group representing tennis equipment manufacturers.

    Nope.

    You're aboslutely right. However, the primary source of their funding is from manufacturers of sports equipment. This does not make them an astroturf organization, of course, but it would help matters if they had even one post on their site that explained why they support SOPA/PROTECT IP. They do not, which naturally leads a man to think some millionaire maker of tennis rackets approached them, and said "Hey, if you don't sign this, everyone in whatever tennis leagues are there for tennis will be wearing you're uniforms because they're just so cool, and you'll never be able to make money ever again." (Yes, they said "you're," even though they were talking.)

    In a similar situation is Concerned Women for America. This right-wing, pro-family, anti-abortion, anti-women's rights organization could hardly be called the poster child for the sodomy-loving, Zionist Hollywood media conglomerates. (FYI, that was all sarcasm.) So, why support SOPA? Well, it appears that they just hate Google, and really like anyone who wants to censor the 'net. But who knows.

    As for "Americans for Tax Reform," they are a fairly right-wing, anti-Obama organization, run pretty much exclusively by Grover Norquist (who, I'm ashamed to say, lives not too far away from my house). It is also not a 501(c)(3) organization (hint: they're essentially lobbyists). Even so, they no longer support SOPA nor PROTECT IP, though some Congressional scalliwag has left their name up there. Damn you, Obama!

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2012 @ 08:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    The US Tennis Association, I believe, is a trade group representing tennis equipment manufacturers. I could be wrong.

    I don't know about the others. I'll look them up when I'm not surfing on my phone.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2012 @ 08:18pm

    Re: Google and Techdirt

    Mike went over this. Two years ago, Google provided space for a Techdirt event. They did not have anything to do with the event's agenda, and did not pay Techdirt.

    Techdirt also has AdWords, as does most of the web.

    That's it. They have not, for example, done a case study with Techdirt, unlike, say, UPS, AmEx, or Oracle.

    The idea that Google has anything to do with the blog is hogwash.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2012 @ 08:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    Gah... HTML tag fail again!

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2012 @ 08:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    I simply refuted his claim. Those organizations are, in fact, non-profits.

    It was my claim, actually. And, I didn't just say "non-profits," I said a non-profit that wasn't funded in its entirety by supporters of those acts.

    Zero of what you gave me qualified.

    But, perhaps I wasn't being technical enough for you. When people say "non-profit," usually what they are talking about are non-profit organizations that are geared towards the social welfare. They don't mean the RIAA, or the BSA, the AFL-CIO, or other trade organizations, whose     sole function is to look out for the welfare of their own membership at all costs.

    If any of those organizations claimed to be "grassroots," they'd be lying. If any organization was set up by those groups alone, and claimed to be grassroots, that would be "astroturfing."

    This is the accusation Bob was throwing at the EFF and Wikipedia: that they were astroturf organizations, and that all of the protests by all 1,500+ sites worldwide were somehow coordinated from within Google's offices.

    But there are a large number of organizations that are not trade groups for you both to choke on.

    Can you name one? I looked through the list the A.C. above posted, and all I saw were trade organizations (like the BSA, RIAA, AFL-CIO and its affiliates, etc).

    None of them are non-profits who are not funded entirely by people with a strong economic interest in passing those laws.

    Not a single one of them was a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which is what both the EFF and the Wikipedia Foundation are.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2012 @ 07:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    Here's just the ones that begin with "A":

    Really? You count trade organizations as "non-profit organizations that are not funded by supporters of those acts?"

    That's really ridiculous. The RIAA is technically "non-profit" too, but nobody would believe that they're not funded in their entirety by supporters of SOPA and PROTECT IP.

    Wikipedia and the EFF represent the interests of the general public - unlike trade unions or industry organizations, whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of their membership. They are funded in their entirety by people who have a vested interest in support the acts.

    Claiming that these groups are grass-roots organizations is the very definition of astroturfing.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2012 @ 05:35am

    Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    Dammit, sorry about the link fail.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2012 @ 05:34am

    Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....

    astroturfing through organizations the EFF and Wikipedia

    The idea that the EFF is a "front" for Google is an absurd conspiracy theory. One that I already debunked, long ago, in a reply to you.

    For one thing, the EFF predates Google by about eight years. For another thing, the EFF has actually sued Google, multiple times, over their privacy issues.

    A cursory glance at EFF's Annual Report shows that neither Google nor the Brin Wojcicki Foundation is the majority source for the EFF's funding. Hell, even the page you linked to shows that many other people besides the BWF donated.

    For that matter, the BWF is giving one hundred times more in donations to the Michael J. Fox Foundation. I guess means all people trying to stamp out Parkinson's are just "astroturfing" for Google, right?

    And the idea that Wikipedia was used as an "astroturf" organization is totally and completely bogus. Not only was Brin's grant (though awesome) not a majority source of their funding, it had no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia's decision to black out its site.

    Know how I know this? Because Wikipedia's members decided to do it, and     the entire decision-making process was done in public.

    And the idea that Techdirt is "funded by Big Search" is pure, unadulterated, 100% bullshit. If you don't believe me, look at Insight Community's case studies and conversations, and note that not even one sponsor is a search engine.

    Now, on the other hand, I challenge you to find even one non-profit organization that supported SOPA or PROTECT IP, and wasn't funded in its entirety by supporters of those acts.

    Face it, Bob: you're delusional.

  • On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats… But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2012 @ 04:50am

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

    And we gave this company access to the world seed vault to preserve horticulture.

    Worse: We made Monsanto's VP head of the Food and Drug Administration.

  • On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats… But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway

    Karl ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2012 @ 04:42am

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

    More padding. I can keep going if you'd like.

    First of all, when a supposedly "journalistic" article uses loaded words like "justify," "rationalize," and "excuse" - rather than "give reasons for" - you know it's bound to be a crock.

    Second of all, there is no link to this "major European Commission survey," nor does it even mention who conducted it. So there is no way to look at the actual survey, nor the underlying data - for all we know, it might not even exist.

  • On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats… But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 08:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It'd be like if you lived on an orchard and someone kept stealing your apples.

    No, it's like someone buying one of your apples, then taking the seeds and planting a tree in their back yard. Then you coming over with the police, cutting my tree down, and kicking me out of my house.

    This is neither an exaggeration, nor theoretical. It is exactly how Monsanto enforces their patents.

  • On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats… But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 08:07pm

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

    While everyone on Techdirt lies about why they pirate

    Well then, why are you lying about why you pirate?

    I lie about it because I only pirate porn of female-to-male transsexuals dressed as Abraham Lincoln, and I don't want anyone to find out.

    ...Oh, crap.

    there are some places where people are honest about their behavior:

    Interesting. There were plenty of posts about how they pirate, but there was only one post in that entire thread saying why that person pirates. Here it is:

    Because of my vision it's hard to watch tv on a regular tv but with my monitor i'm able to adjust the size to fit my needs.

    Winner of a rebuttal there, buddy.

  • On the post: NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats… But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway

    Karl ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2012 @ 07:54am

    Wave bye-bye

    This is also flat-out wrong:

    The wave of creation that is more hobby than profession has little to do with piracy, and would likely be unaffected by laws to curb illicit downloads.

    The laws that have been suggested (and, luckily, rejected) thus far would have little effect on "illicit downloads," but would make it much harder for internet industries (especially startups) to exist without huge compliance costs.

    So, the industries that allow this "wave of creation" would be hit hardest of all by "laws to curb illicit downloads," even though they have "little to do with piracy."

Next >>