Monday A: Children should not smoke B: We agree A + B: Let’s agree to promote “youth smoking prevention”
Tuesday B: Let’s insert language into the TPP that allows us to sell cigarettes at school cafeterias. A: We don’t support this. It contradicts “youth smoking prevention”. It will be controversial.
Wednesday: Techdirt: MPAA are liars!! They say they support youth smoking prevention. But they now say it is controversial!
Chorus of ignorant Techdirt posters: F*ck the MPAA! Anyone who disagrees with our position, based on a stolen document of unknown origin and unverified accuracy that we declare the immutable truth, needs to answer an arbitrary set of illogical questions and give us their name and photo ID or else!
I've dismissed Mike's questions as logical fallacy. Multiple times.
This is the "When did you stop beating your wife?" line of questioning. Chris Dodd never beat his wife. And the MPAA never changed its position on fair use. You guys just don't give up.
Youtube - yes. Justin Beiber was discovered by Youtube. You are so right - the future of music is in great hands. I'll go on over to Kickstarter to fund some band's recording fees so they can put their MP3's up on Soundcloud since none of them have enough talent to play live and make money any more.
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.
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.
But please continue your noble bate to fight the power. Surely if we can bring down Hollywood, everyone will be very happy. Just like we did to the music industry. By the way, did you hear the new Beyonce single? It's better than anything those "musicians" of the record industry era ever produced.
OK, I see. You guys hate the record industry too. You loved Fight Club and the scene where he destroys the corporate art (even though this was a Hollywood movie). Fight the power!
So tell me more of this golden age of music we now live in. Should I buy the new Pitbull CD? Or one of these GREAT new pop country bands? Black Veil Brides? So much great new music out there... and NONE of these performers lip sync at the Grammys, on Saturday Night Live, or in their concerts.
There are no points. When the meaning of "fair use" is intentionally misapplied to support enablement of piracy, of course the MPAA objects. But the MPAA has not changed its stance.
I'm glad you love Beyonce too. Because the result of the demise of the music industry through piracy means no more bands, no more albums & CD's, no more good music. You get crappy singles from pop icons. Let's take down Hollywood and do the same thing to film.
"Voice of the customer" is a commonly used business term. Opposite would be "voice of the business", and in operation, "voice of the process". These terms make you laugh because... you don't know anything about business?
Yes, the USG says it was North Korea. The same USG that claims it was impossible for any foreign government to hack Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server. The same USG that built Healthcare.gov. Also, the USG says Lois Lerner's e-mails were permanently lost after a server crashed and the backup tapes were destroyed.
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?
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.
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.
I don't want to get into a drawn out back and forth but I think you have a pretty good understanding of how the game is played.
Let me go back to my original point, which is that the article here spins this letter by Dodd into something it is not. I think it's amusing how well the media plays into the narrative created by a few players. The same media that decried SOPA because "we have to keep government out of the internet and let industry protect it" now cries in reaction to net neutrality "we have to get the government involved in the internet and keep the greedy corporations from destroying it."
That's what's happening here. The MPAA has not flipped its position. That is my point.
And by the way - on at least one occasion TPP drafts were leaked on Wikileaks before they were available to the pubic.
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. 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.
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?
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?
This criticism is misinformed. 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. Dodd here was correctly defending the consistent stance of the MPAA related to this specific definition of fair use.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by MarkAF.
Monday
A: Children should not smoke
B: We agree
A + B: Let’s agree to promote “youth smoking prevention”
Tuesday
B: Let’s insert language into the TPP that allows us to sell cigarettes at school cafeterias.
A: We don’t support this. It contradicts “youth smoking prevention”. It will be controversial.
Wednesday:
Techdirt: MPAA are liars!! They say they support youth smoking prevention. But they now say it is controversial!
Chorus of ignorant Techdirt posters: F*ck the MPAA! Anyone who disagrees with our position, based on a stolen document of unknown origin and unverified accuracy that we declare the immutable truth, needs to answer an arbitrary set of illogical questions and give us their name and photo ID or else!
I've dismissed Mike's questions as logical fallacy. Multiple times.
This is the "When did you stop beating your wife?" line of questioning. Chris Dodd never beat his wife. And the MPAA never changed its position on fair use. You guys just don't give up.
Youtube - yes. Justin Beiber was discovered by Youtube. You are so right - the future of music is in great hands. I'll go on over to Kickstarter to fund some band's recording fees so they can put their MP3's up on Soundcloud since none of them have enough talent to play live and make money any more.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
Mike,
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.
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.
But please continue your noble bate to fight the power. Surely if we can bring down Hollywood, everyone will be very happy. Just like we did to the music industry. By the way, did you hear the new Beyonce single? It's better than anything those "musicians" of the record industry era ever produced.
OK, I see. You guys hate the record industry too. You loved Fight Club and the scene where he destroys the corporate art (even though this was a Hollywood movie). Fight the power!
So tell me more of this golden age of music we now live in. Should I buy the new Pitbull CD? Or one of these GREAT new pop country bands? Black Veil Brides? So much great new music out there... and NONE of these performers lip sync at the Grammys, on Saturday Night Live, or in their concerts.
There are no points. When the meaning of "fair use" is intentionally misapplied to support enablement of piracy, of course the MPAA objects. But the MPAA has not changed its stance.
I'm glad you love Beyonce too. Because the result of the demise of the music industry through piracy means no more bands, no more albums & CD's, no more good music. You get crappy singles from pop icons. Let's take down Hollywood and do the same thing to film.
John,
"Voice of the customer" is a commonly used business term. Opposite would be "voice of the business", and in operation, "voice of the process". These terms make you laugh because... you don't know anything about business?
- Kim Jong Un
Yes, the USG says it was North Korea. The same USG that claims it was impossible for any foreign government to hack Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server. The same USG that built Healthcare.gov. Also, the USG says Lois Lerner's e-mails were permanently lost after a server crashed and the backup tapes were destroyed.
Come on now...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
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.
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.
But that doesn't make a good headline, does it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
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?
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
"Net Neutrality acts like the building and fire codes that keep your house from falling apart or burning down."
Your thesis is poorly constructed and lacks support.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
Mike,
I don't want to get into a drawn out back and forth but I think you have a pretty good understanding of how the game is played.
Let me go back to my original point, which is that the article here spins this letter by Dodd into something it is not. I think it's amusing how well the media plays into the narrative created by a few players. The same media that decried SOPA because "we have to keep government out of the internet and let industry protect it" now cries in reaction to net neutrality "we have to get the government involved in the internet and keep the greedy corporations from destroying it."
That's what's happening here. The MPAA has not flipped its position. That is my point.
And by the way - on at least one occasion TPP drafts were leaked on Wikileaks before they were available to the pubic.
Re: Re: Dodd is correct
Mike & Stephen,
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. 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.
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?
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?
Dodd is correct
This criticism is misinformed. 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. Dodd here was correctly defending the consistent stance of the MPAA related to this specific definition of fair use.