MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
from the and-that's-what-you-get dept
For years, we’ve discussed how questionable it is that federal law enforcement, including the Justice Department and Homeland Security, often acts as the private police force of the entertainment industry. At times there’s been a bit of a revolving door, with the RIAA/MPAA hiring former federal law enforcement officials to head up their “anti-piracy” efforts, and the existing federal groups sometimes seem to return the favor by taking on cases that clearly should be civil matters between the private companies in the entertainment business and those it feels infringed on their rights.
Over the last few years, the fact that the feds have effectively been working as the entertainment industry’s private police force has grown more and more obvious. No one from Homeland Security seems willing to explain (and trust me, I’ve asked multiple times) why it is that when ICE did its domain seizures, it relied solely on claims from the industry and (even more ridiculous) announced the first round of seizures from Disney headquarters. Can you imagine how people would react if the FTC announced it was filing antitrust charges against Google… from Microsoft’s offices? Or if the FCC announced it was blocking the AT&T-T-Mobile merger from Sprint’s offices? Such scenarios seem preposterous, but ICE doesn’t seem to recognize the clear conflict of interest in acting as the private police force for an industry, rather than actually doing its job.
Perhaps part of that is because the entertainment industry is spending a ton of money lobbying law enforcement agencies directly. Most of the time when you think about lobbying activities, you think about talking to politicians to try to get them to pass certain laws, or talking to regulators to have them adjust or change certain rules and regulations. You don’t tend to think of lobbying law enforcement directly in order to convince them to do your private bidding. But, the MPAA does.
According to a disclosure report, the MPAA spent $400,000 lobbying a wide range of US government departments in the first quarter of 2011 including the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, ICE and the Vice President?s Office. Issues on the table include so-called ?rogue sites? including RapidShare, streaming, graduated response (3 strikes) and domain seizures.
There are no real surprises in the content covered. It’s the same stuff the MPAA has been pushing for a while now. But the fact that they’re directly lobbying the FBI, the Justice Department, Homeland Security and ICE should raise some eyebrows. Law enforcement should not be influenced by the desires of private companies — especially ones with a long history of failing to adapt to changing technologies and trying to get those technologies declared illegal. Imagine if, rather than a civil lawsuit, when the VCR was introduced, the movie industry could have just had the FBI declare the things illegal?
Filed Under: copyright, criminal, doj, fbi, homeland security, ice, joe biden, law enforcement, lobbying
Companies: mpaa
Comments on “MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force”
The more I read here, the more depressed I get
It seems we are sinking ever further into becoming a police/nanny/corporate state with our rights being trampled or outright taken away. The worst part is nobody seems to notice or care. Yea, a few of us do, but not enough of us.
Re: The more I read here, the more depressed I get
Unfortunately, it’s not just a US phenomenon. I live in a EU country, and over here when the police shows up at your door at six in the morning to serve you a search warrant, because you’ve been sharing too much stuff via bit torrent, you were running a link sharing forum with servers in their jurisdiction or whatever, they show up with “independent specialists” who are employees of BSA (Business Software Alliance,) the people responsible for bringing cases like these to their attention in the first place.
When I report that my house was robbed, the police finds a trace of the suspect (HIGHLY unlikely) and gets a warrant, somehow I don’t get to go into his house with them and look for my stuff. I wonder why that is… Oh yeah, I’m not sitting on piles of cash that I could bribe them with.
And I’m not even kidding about bribes either. Each year, the music/film industry actually awards the police department that was most successful in fighting “piracy” by buying them hardware etc. The police should be catching real criminals, but instead time and public money is wasted so that they can run errands for some American companies. How can something like this go on in a country of law, I really do not understand.
That last sentence is the takeaway. I often have to explain to people with incredulous looks on their faces that, if the content industry had their way, we never would have even had the VCR. And we want to trust these people to gauge whether new technologies and services are legal on their say-so alone? What a joke.
well obviously if the entertainment industry had gotten its way and outlawed the vcr we would be living in MPAA candyland.
the fact that the Fed has become the strong arm of the corporations should surprise nobody, they already owned the legislative branch, the next logical step in complete corporatocracy, is the executive. That’ll just leave the judicial branch, and they are appointed, so once the MPAA is in position they’ll just appoint the same guys they put in the Fed from their law offices right into SCOTUS
You have to admit that bypassing citizen representatives and going directly to the nameless, low paid employees and appointees that actually have the guns is a pretty smart strategy. Satan is pleased.
our govt is pathetic. We’re fucked
I would love to see someone from Google or Facebook just buy out one of those places, undo as much of the damage as possible, and dissolve them. Then start making hints about who should be next …
So which is the bigger threat:
Piracy or corruption in government?
Re: Re:
piracy is the boogeyman the corrupt gov uses to abuse us, soooooooooooo
I get the feeling the issue of corporate capture of the U.S. government is only going to get worse before it gets better. I really hope that the corporations try to do something utterly over the top sooner rather than later; the thought that scares me the most is a total corporate takeover of the government that’s so slow that by the time it’s really really bad people are too used to it to realize how bad it is.
calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If someone breaks into my house and I call the cops, I’m not “lobbying” for them to be my “private security force.” The police work for all of us and the last time I checked, the hard working content creators are just as entitled to ask the police to enforce the laws as the couch potatoes.
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Breaking and Entering is a criminal act. Copyright infringement that the MPAA/RIAA and others are targeting is a civil matter.
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Ask the Techdirt Idiot Laureate, “the eejit” about whether infringement can be a criminal matter. He ran around here for months making a fool of himself too before he got schooled.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Actually, I genuionely got it wrong.
That said, there was ONE successful prosecution of criminal copyright infringement, and that was WAY back in the 18th Century. One succcess in over 300 years does not make me a fool, expecially considering I’m not an expert. I had to dig deep to get that.
And as for “Techdirt Idiot Laureate,” I’m fairly certain I have good competition in you, coming from the Village Idiot school of advocacy.
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You got it right Bob. Sadly, any time copyright holders do anything to try to get their legal rights enforced, they are called bullies. There are all sorts of claims made here and other places that they are paying off politicians and such.
If they were doing a good of it, don’t you think there would be more going on?
There are laws on the books, and the industry people are trying to get the FBI and other agencies to take the situation seriously. Since the President’s of the companies are not going to spend their time calling around, they hire people to do it. Lobbying? $400,000 would be a pathetic lobbying budget.
It’s just more rhetoric from the anti-copyright voices out there that desperately don’t want existing laws to be enforced.
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Going around throwing parties, buying gifts, and generally schmoozing with/for FBI and oher Fed agency Heads and VPs then asking for favors is not ‘calling the cops.’ Neither do you call the cops when the kid next to you copies off your homework. When you are at he head of a multi billion dollar industry using your money to create monopolies, threaten competition, and trying to stifle technology, you do not get to paint yourself as a victim from all those dirty ‘pirates.’
$400,000 may not seem like a lot but when you add to it the millions they spend on congressional campaigns, it begins to add up.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
By law, you cannot give them a gift of (I believe) more than $25. You aren’t even allowed to pay for their meal at a restaurant. So limos, hookers, deep sea fishing trips, vacations, golf outings in private jets and all of the other fantasies you are imagining are just that: fantasies.
Re: Re: Re:2 And I thought Pollyanna was a fictional character
So, you really, really believe the crap you just posted? The rest of the planet lives in the real world, for the most part. The real world where what is proscribed by law is also ignored by the lawmakers, because they can, and they do, and they will. You really should climb completely out from under whatever rock you’ve been living under, open your eyes and ears, and learn what actually happens right under the nose of the populace, each and every day, without restraint. If anyone has fantasies, it is you.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
By law, you cannot give them a gift of (I believe) more than $25. You aren’t even allowed to pay for their meal at a restaurant. So limos, hookers, deep sea fishing trips, vacations, golf outings in private jets and all of the other fantasies you are imagining are just that: fantasies.
You can’t acutally believe this, can you?
The fact that you try to claim knowledge of some ‘law’ about something then preface it wit ‘i think’ kinda of invalidates you point.
The fantasy here is you don’t think the feds are getting kick backs because of some law, when they have demonstrated a clear disinterest in laws that are inconvienient to them.
5 years from now when the MPAA’s boot is crushing our collective human face(because of people like you) I hope you accidently click a link that leads to ‘infringing’ content and are arrested and raped in prison, just for the irony.
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“5 years from now when the MPAA’s boot is crushing our collective human face”
This won’t happen.
Everything said here is basically about why that won’t happen.
The problem isn’t that the MPAA, RIAA etc will get their way and no-one will be able to get hold of music or movies etc without paying exorbitant rates. The biggest problem is that in the process of failing to achieve this goal, the MPAA and RIAA etc are actually actively damaging the businesses who are funding them as well as undermining basic rights for everyone. Together they are deluding themselves into thinking that they can make their old systems work, if they can just tighten up legislation still further or have more enforcement.
The simple fact is that, the actual value of copies in the digital world is close to zero, any business that acts as if it were otherwise will fail. All the legislation, all the enforcement is all an enormous waste of time, energy and money and worst of all it is damaging to everyone, including those most in favour of it.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
By law, you cannot give them a gift of (I believe) more than $25.
So where did the $400,000 go?
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
there are ways around it, such as mentioning that they need to inform you of their next fund raising benefit so that their 400k donation can be made, or signing a “throw-away” contract that basically is nothing but you giving away money. In all cases the money is to be a clear and unconditional donation, however the unethical business men know that where the money came from and what for….
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
> By law, you cannot give them a gift of (I believe)
> more than $25.
You can’t give the employees themselves gifts, but you sure as hell can give it to the agency itself in the form of donated equipment, facilities, etc.
In these days of slashed budgets and belt-tightening, even the FBI would welcome large corporate donations that help fund the agency.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Sounds like $400,000 in outright bribery, IMHO.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Google’s in for about 1.8 million for the same period. Does that sound like bribery too?
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
$400,000 is the amount that it is declared. i’ll bet there is a hell of a lot more under the table handouts!
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Lobbying? $400,000 would be a pathetic lobbying budget.
$400,000 in a single quarter is not a pathetic lobbying budget by any stretch of the imagination.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
@Masnick
you should look into that statement further
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
From what I can see, the average annual lobbying expense of the MPAA is between $1.5- to 2-million. So $400,000 a quarter would be pretty much average – certainly not “pathetic”
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
FYI, Google has spent four times that amount in the same period.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
opensecrets.com
Re: Re: Re:4 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Psst…it’s opensecrets.org
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You are right, first thing they (RIAA/MPAA/Content Owners) have to do is find a lawyer then go to court and explain to the judge why they think the bad civilian is infringing. If the judge thinks they have a case then the civilian has to lawyer up and present his case and the judge then decides if it is fair use or not.
You will please note that at no time is anyones life or physical well being in danger as could be the case for a breaking and entering situation.
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I think that this is missing the point. Calling the police on someone for breaking into your home is a violation of your personal rights. You have a right to protect your property as well as yourself.
The issue here is not a protection issue so much as the root problem with the way people think about Copyright today. As Mike is careful to note (multiple times), Copyright’s intention is really to benefit the public (as discussed in this article). Given this, there are two stakeholders in any Copyright discussion – the Copyright holders and the public.
Saying that their going directly to these various Federal groups is no different than you calling the police is tantamount to saying that the sole purpose of Copyright is to benefit the Copyright holders, regardless of the best interest of the public.
While I don’t have a fundamental disagreement with them directly contacting these organizations, I do have a strong opposition to the fact that these organizations are not investigating the other side of the coin. By simply spewing the “facts” that the Copyright holders provide as to the reasons why they seized the domains, these organizations are, as Mike notes, “propping up an outdated business model” instead of looking to fairly address the problem with facts from both sides.
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“The issue here is not a protection issue so much as the root problem with the way people think about Copyright today. As Mike is careful to note (multiple times), Copyright’s intention is really to benefit the public (as discussed in this article). Given this, there are two stakeholders in any Copyright discussion – the Copyright holders and the public. “
You should check with Masnick on this. I inferred that he DOES NOT believe that copyright holders are stakeholders in the copyright discussion. Which I find asinine.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I inferred that he DOES NOT believe that copyright holders are stakeholders in the copyright discussion
How did you infer that?
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
From his article. Also, see his remarks below
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You mean the remarks where concedes that yes they are a stakeholder, and that the article you refer to was too strongly worded?
Re: Re: Re:4 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Nice spin Sir Marcus- OBN. Yes, the remarks regarding the article wherein both the title and body, Masnick contended that copyright holders WERE NOT stakeholders in the copyright debate. And as far as the “too strongly worded” spin goes, he went from saying rights holders weren’t stake holder to conceding rights holders are stakeholders.
Please don’t try to spin this. For once Masnick looked back at an assertion he made, manned up and said he was mistaken. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Re: Re: Re:5 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Blah blah blah. You are one tiring idiot. But way to go – you caught Techdirt out on a semantic error! Congratu-fucking-lations! Throw a damn party and please, please do not invite me.
Re: Re: Re:6 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“semantic error”? Is there no limit to your obsequious servility? The guy screwed up, then thought better of it and reversed himself. That’s actually pretty commendable. Don’t undermine it with your suck-up excuse making.
I actually was going to throw a party, and really hoped you could come and wow my guests with one of your spiffy poetry readings set to music.
Re: Re: Re:7 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Hmm – nice tactic! Anyone whose opinion is closer to Mike’s than yours is automatically a servile, suck-up, brown-noser. Based on that system, I can assume your head is about three feet up Chris Dodd’s ass.
Re: Re: Re:8 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Closer to? Please. Masnick puts his hand up the back of your shirt and makes your mouth move. You and Jay are the most practiced lickspittles I’ve seen. I guess you find it worthwhile to bask in the reflected glow of his minor celebrity but from out here it looks pretty pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:9 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Just can’t stand to see anyone actually agree with Mike all the time, can you?
Re: Re: Re:9 haters gonna hate
Wow… I barely comment, ask you for one valid report and you make it a special mission to comment about lil ol me. Buck, I didn’t know you cared so much. I’m touched. Cuz deep down, you know copyright law is being used as censorship, and has no need nowadays. But no worries, it doesn’t hurt me to see you act like this. Look at all the other comments that disagree with you. Guess what?
(shhh! Google paid them personally to disagree with you)
Yep, everyone here, is paid by the mean copyright machine to have no say in the censoring of media. No say in how they like new media, and no say in finding artists outside of the music/movie industry you represent.
And when we factor in the new ways that people look for media outside the industry, all I can say is that time does not appear to be on the side of those you represent. I wish you well in your ad hominem attacks. It just proves the point that you have even less of an argument as time goes on.
Hell, Marcus owns you in the insult department. I have to outsource my insults to him and pay him x2 the amount. And we did it all with google’s money just to watch you shake your fist at Mike as he proves you wrong with valid points.
What a world….
Re: Re: Re:10 haters gonna hate
hahahaha… Marcus owns me? maybe if he composed some insult poetry and set it to music he’d stand a chance.
Masnick serves a purpose. His shrill, extremist rantings are used as examples of the intellectual depth of arguments against commonsense anti-piracy legislation and policy. He is far more useful to my side than his own.
In the end, you will lose. The first nail in the piracy coffin was leaked earlier tonight:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20073522-261/top-isps-poised-to-adopt-graduated-response-to-piracy/?tag=mncol;posts
Add felony streaming and Protect IP and it’s all over for all but the most hardcore infringers. But hey, at least you have your sycophant gig to see you through.
Re: Re: Re:11 haters gonna hate
“In the end, you will lose”.
{sigh}
The DMCA is around.
The Net Act is on the books.
Napster makes no money while Spotify is making a decent amount with its “freemium” model.
Meanwhile the movie industry only uses Netflix and doesn’t want to make their own infrastructure.
All of the business model problems going on aren’t going to solve those problems. And still you want to link to the graduated response as if that’s going to fix everything for your masters. Bravo, but still misguided by a long shot.
“Add felony streaming and Protect IP and it’s all over for all but the most hardcore infringers. “
You really don’t see the consequences of trying to lock up people for embedding or going after domains, do you? Two things could possibly happen here:
1) The judges snap back hard with the Rojadirecta or other precedents
2) The piracy problem you “solve” migrates to newer areas.
The end game for you seems to be getting these laws passed. Bravo. The consequences of the passing is what everyone is discussing. Pile it up with all of the other problems of government and you’re preparing a massive backlash. But I guess, being insulated away from the discussion is the name of the game, right?
Tsk tsk…
Re: Re: Re:12 *edit*
“All of the business model problems going on aren’t going to be solved through litigation.”
Re: Re: Re:11 haters gonna hate
Wow, you’re really harping on that poetry thing, huh?
In case anyone is curious, he’s talking about this: http://vimeo.com/7268786
He seems to think I am embarrassed about it just because it’s kind of silly and not particularly good (the lack of rehearsal is visible to say the least)
I do agree with you on one thing though: I don’t own you. If I did, I would put you up on eBay, then probably get shut down for selling medical waste.
Re: Re: Re:11 haters gonna hate
The first nail in the piracy coffin was leaked earlier tonight:
Dude, that coffin has so many nails in it, I don’t think there’s any wood left.
But you know what’s not in it? Anyone infringing. They’re still over there, doing more of it every day.
And while you continue to insist that I’m “pro-piracy,” you’re (again) missing the point. I’m not in favor of piracy or infringement at all. I don’t engage it in any form and never have. I’ve never had Napster or Kazaa or Limewire or anything like that. I’ve never used the Pirate Bay.
My point is that all of these “nails” don’t stop shit. And they don’t help your paymasters put in place a better business model. You guys are so focused on “piracy” as the problem, you seem to have missed the fact that it’s the fact that you can’t figure out how to put in place a smart business model to save your fat paychecks.
I’m the one who’s actually trying to help. I’m the one working with artists and helping them earn more money. I’m the one working with new and innovative startups to put in place better business models. The folks listening to me realize that fighting “piracy” is meaningless. It’s a pointless war that doesn’t help.
So, keep shooting nails into that shattered box. You seem to have missed that the real party is somewhere else.
Re: Re: Re:12 haters gonna hate
More complete bullshit from Mike Masnick.
Masnick, if that were really the case, you wouldn’t have this blog devoted to bitching about piracy enforcement.
You’re hilarious. But very useful. We use you as the poster boy for Freetard Nation.
Re: Re: Re:13 haters gonna hate
IDK but it seems to me the BS is coming from you, AC.
It takes a special kind of ignorance to be unable to understand the larger “picture” here regarding copyright issues and instead, cling to silly, nonsensical name calling such as “freetard”.
Re: Re: Re:13 haters gonna hate
Funny. You mention “we” a lot without explaining who “we” is.
If anything, I would think you guys with use the Piratebay guys as poster boys since ya know… Their site has been a running gag for the industry these last few years.
Re: Re: Re:10 haters gonna hate
Hell, Marcus owns you in the insult department
My secret is simple: be completely honest. I mean, just look at the guy – the material writes itself! When I point out that there is more electrical activity in an ounce of Kardashian ass-fat than in his entire brain, it’s not so much an insult as a public service announcement.
Re: Re: Re:11 haters gonna hate
True, and I’m trying to keep it civil, but he never actively “debates” more than uses your insults for other people. He’s like a broken comedian. After you use a joke, there he goes to do the same thing on a different day.
Re: Re: Re:9 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Masnick puts his hand up the back of your shirt and makes your mouth move.
I think you are confusing me with you, and Mike with your uncle when he drinks.
Re: Re: Re:9 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I guess you find it worthwhile to bask in the reflected glow of his minor celebrity but from out here it looks pretty pathetic
Says fuck lateral. Funny.
Re: Re: Re:5 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Ah, pedantry, the final resort of the witless. At least I’m honest when I get things wrong.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Good catch AC, I misspoke. Referenced here.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Ah yeah, good point. So AC is playing the semantics game. Not surprising.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You should check with Masnick on this. I inferred that he DOES NOT believe that copyright holders are stakeholders in the copyright discussion. Which I find asinine
You find it asinine because those are the interests you represent. You are paid to find it asinine.
But the point stands. I’d be willing to grant that they are *a* stakeholder, and that my original post on the subject was a bit too strong. But the problem is that thanks to people like you, the government seems to believe they’re the only stakeholder. And that’s asinine.
The purpose of copyright law is to benefit the public. Full stop.
The way that is done is to create beneficiaries out of copyright holders. Does that make such holders a stakeholder? I guess, but it certainly should not make them the one driving policy. The policy should be entirely focused on what benefits the public. The copyright holders will *always* claim that the best way to benefit the public is to give them more control/power/rights. Yet that may not (and often is not) true.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Well, that’s a meaningless statement. Even corporations are made up of members of “the public”. How do you define the word in this instance?
That’s not true. I hold dozens of copyrights, and I don’t feel that way. I can name a lot of musicians that agree: DJ Shadow, George Clinton, RJD2, Steinski, Tricky, Bjork, Fugazi, El-P, OKGo, Negativland, Trent Reznor, MF Doom, Biz Markie, Sonic Youth… the list goes on and on. Even some oddballs: U2 as a group apparently doesn’t, but I know from an interview between The Edge and Negativland that he doesn’t agree with strict-IP enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
For that matter, you hold hundreds of copyrights, considering this site, and even you don’t agree with exactly the sentiment you’re claiming copyright holders *always* claim. Even you are a stakeholder and beneficiary.
Re: Re: Re:4 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Obviously, he means copyright holders who give a shit. And yeah, you’re totally arguing semantics. But whatever.
Anyway, Mike Masnick is not a copyright holder by his own intention. It was foisted upon him – and Cory Doctorow, and myself, and millions of other unwitting copyright holders – by the actual people who give a shit, who are generally referred to as ‘copyright holders’. Since that’s how they refer to themselves.
Moving on to the actual points raised…
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I think in this case it is clear that “copyright holders” was referring to “enforcement-happy copyright holders” – specifically large copyright lobbies like the MPAA/RIAA.
However, you have charmed me by listing several of my favourite artists above. You’re all right, Huph!
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
What do you think, EFF, CDT and PK do? They meet with the same regulators, elected officials, staffers and appointees that all the other lobbyists talk to. It’s not that the stakeholder you define as “the public” isn’t being heard from, it’s that the arguments being made on their behalf by those groups isn’t resonating. Whose fault is that? Generally, these groups have very capable people advocating on behalf of “the public”. The problem is that the real issue is about freeloading. Specious arguments revolving around due process and free speech are regarded as just that- specious arguments to enable freeloading. At therefore, it has no traction. That’s not to say that people aren’t mindful of Constitutional protections. In fact, that’s why the industry engaged the leading First Amendment scholar to vet the Protect IP Act to assure it passed constitutional muster.
So it’s not corruption, it’s not inside poker. Everyone has the same access to the people in the decision making process. It’s just that few people are sympathetic to the need to freeload.
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“They meet with the same regulators, elected officials, staffers and appointees that all the other lobbyists talk to. It’s not that the stakeholder you define as “the public” isn’t being heard from, it’s that the arguments being made on their behalf by those groups isn’t resonating.”
Funny. Let’s take just one lobbyist. Mitch Rosen. He knows the Justice Department quite well, given that he used to work for them in 2002. He would have a few friends while campaigning for stronger copyright laws in the RIAA. So the matter of not resonating seems to be more of a bias to one view point based on familiarity.
” The problem is that the real issue is about freeloading. “
It’s never been and you know it.
“That’s not to say that people aren’t mindful of Constitutional protections.”
Yeah, with the IP lookups, and the settlement letters of yesteryear along with the domain seizures that pass muster… Where’s the government’s argument, *in court*, about the domain seizures? Better yet, where’s the prosecutions for the first domain seizures?
” Everyone has the same access to the people in the decision making process.”
The absolute most laughable thing is trying to say that I have access to my Senator and Congressmen who have advocated publicly for these laws, making the entire nation weaker as a whole. Who would you rather listen to as a Senator that has had the same office for 10+ years? The people that will elect you through gerrymandered voting or the new gift giving lobbyist that is funding your campaign?
Yeah, tough choice…
“It’s just that few people are sympathetic to the need to freeload.”
Never has been about “sympathy to freeload”, it’s about a system that’s not hearing the public. I guess you can continue that argument if you want, but that doesn’t make it any more true.
Re: Re: Re:4 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Ah, Sir Jay of the OBN!! I see you’ve finished detailing MM’s car and have rejoined the fray. Excellent!
Every congressman and senator has district offices and you can meet with them or senior staff by calling for an appointment. Ever tried?
And who do you think works for EFF, CDT and PK? They didn’t come from Manpower Temporary Services, you know. They are accomplished, experienced professionals. They could use more resources and I’m sure they’d appreciate a check.
I understand that it’s easier to criticize and find fault than to roll up your sleeves and try to make a change. With your considerable skill at the former, you might be surprised at your success in the latter…. if only you cared enough to actually try.
Re: Re: Re:5 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Yes. My Congressman, Tom Cole, told me that my husband – not me, even though I was calling for myself – could meet with him if he got eleven other veterans together and flew to Washington D.C. So I have to ask… Have you ever tried?
And who do you think works for EFF, CDT and PK? They didn’t come from Manpower Temporary Services, you know. They are accomplished, experienced professionals. They could use more resources and I’m sure they’d appreciate a check.
A check? Really? I think they prefer the contributions that I send via their websites, but whatever. In reality, where I live, the amount that I can donate is dwarfed by the amount that a single corporation can and does donate, so your point is moot.
I understand that it’s easier to criticize and find fault than to roll up your sleeves and try to make a change. With your considerable skill at the former, you might be surprised at your success in the latter…. if only you cared enough to actually try.
Vocally criticizing these issues is part and parcel of ‘rolling up your sleeves’ and attempting to make changes. Obviously.
Re: Re: Re:6 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Cole has district offices in Norman, Lawton and Ada. This Spring he held town hall meetings in Ardmore, Marietta, Moore, Chickasha, Norman, Ada, Lawton and Duncan. Attend any? If you go to his website, you can make an appointment online. It may be with senior staff, but that is usually as good or better in terms of getting the message across- they have more time. Cole serves on Budget and Appropriations so these sorts of issues are out of his area of expertise.
Re: Re: Re:7 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If you go to his website, you can make an appointment online.
If you are a lobbying group, you certainly can. Or did you miss the ‘number of attendees’, etc. on the form?
See, if you fill out that form for yourself, you’ll get a call from a senior staff member who won’t answer any questions on any of his positions and tells you that you cannot make an appointment at all, but if your veteran husband wants to get other vets together and fly to DC (and agree to be photographed with Tom Cole), he’ll see you.
In DC. After the photo op.
If you write, you’ll get a very expensively printed letter back that very carefully says nothing at all. If you write and e-mail enough times, you’ll get an angry e-mail that may or may not be from Tom Cole himself, but whoever they are is angry and not very eloquent. Also, they should use more line breaks. But whatever. It’s still not helpful.
Cole serves on Budget and Appropriations so these sorts of issues are out of his area of expertise.
So you’re saying that following your suggesting and contacting my rep about these issues would be… useless? Even though that’s a direct contradiction from what you said earlier?
Yeah. Thought so.
Anyway, you didn’t answer my question. Have you ever tried contacting your representative?
Re: Re: Re:5 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“Every congressman and senator has district offices and you can meet with them or senior staff by calling for an appointment. Ever tried?”
I send letters. I get forms right back. Nice way to prove my point.
The rest of your argument is pretty much moot since I’ve already researched the Senate and who I am voting for.
Next time, stop grasping at straws and stick to facts.
Re: Re: Re:6 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Unless you live in Oregon or are moving there, it doesn’t matter who you vote for. Wyden is the only one making waves.
If you want a meeting call or just show up at the district office, or go to a town hall meeting. Senators and Congressmen have large staffs that are paid to ignore letters from crackpots like you. I assume that your letters are rants instead of requests for meetings so they may have already figured that you’re nuttier than squirrel shit and are ignoring you. If you really want a meeting, put on a jacket and tie (not your clip-on) and try to refrain from acting like a jackass while you ask to have a word with senior staff or counsel. Try to appear reasonable. Best bet is to ask about the representatives position and why s/he holds it. Then explain your different viewpoint (if necessary).
Re: Re: Re:7 So sad...
Aaand again, you’re grasping at straws.
Re: Re: Re:7 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I live five miles from my rep and he won’t stop to speak to me in the high-end grocery store, much less at a town meeting where he has ten plants in the audience ready to ask him pre-planned questions.
You’re an idiot.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“You should check with Masnick on this. I inferred that he DOES NOT believe that copyright holders are stakeholders in the copyright discussion. Which I find asinine.”
infer
v. infers, inferred, inferring.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.
The only one of these 4 options that you could realistically defend is number 4, that you are hinting or implying the position to Masnick.
And yes, that is asinine, but then why did you do it.
Having been given the prime cuts, and then demanding more and more, the copyright maximalists go on to claiming eternal ownership of the entire cow and that they are not only entitled to be paid extra whenever somebody makes something out of any part of the cow. But still expect to be paid even more when someone uses that thing that someone else made out of any part of the cow at any point currently within lifetime+70yrs but should any part of the cow survive until then, will want the term extended.
Want to wear those shoes, you’ll need a licence.
Want to wear them outdoors, that’ll be another higher licence.
Want to wear them outdoors in a place where more than 20 people are gathered, top dollar for that.
When the cowboys are paying the police directly and encouraging them to check you out for illicit shoe wearing,
not to mention seizing your shoes without notice or trial then the law will only be doing it’s job.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Nothing more enjoyable then letting the air out of pompous windbags like you.
I’ll choose to defend: Definition #1:
From Masnick’s May 2 article:
“Some might argue that copyright holders are a stakeholder, but I think Rick Falkvinge has it exactly right when he notes that the copyright industry is not a stakeholder at all, but a beneficiary of copyright law.”
Note that the title of the article stated that copyright holders were not stakeholders but beneficiaries.
So feel free to follow up with more stupid, uninformed rants.
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You are suggesting that they are not beneficiaries? Seriously?
For heaven’s sake, them being beneficiaries of the law is the only thing that gives them any standing to be referred to as stakeholders, that is after all their stake in it.
Re: Re: Re:4 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
@green AC:
Seriously, are you slow or something? Of course they’re beneficiaries. As is the public. But Masnick’s May 2 article forwarded the contention that the copyright industry WERE NOT stakeholders. That’s what I took issue with.
Re: Re: Re:5 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
The public’s stake is when the legislated monopoly rights cease and works enter the public domain, for anything created within the last century that isn’t going to happen in any one’s lifetime, the public are clearly not beneficiaries.
Marcus seems to have grasped your rather fox newsy way of misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise of what is being discussed.
Re: Re: Re:5 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
That’s what I took issue with.
Dude, if you really think that semantics game made you a winner those corps should really pay more money to fund a better shill. You’re pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Gah. This is ridiculous semantics. It’s pretty simple:
– They are “stakeholders” in the sense of having an obvious interest in the outcome
– They are not “stakeholders” in the sense of copyright protecting their rights, because in fact copyright is what grants them those rights in the first place
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
So feel free to follow up with more stupid, uninformed rants.
Why should he when you’re already doing a pretty good job at this?
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If someone breaks into my house and I call the cops, I’m not “lobbying” for them to be my “private security force.”
If I you take the police chief out to an expensive dinner and for the next month your ex wife has her car impounded 5 times due to a series ‘paperwork errors’ it’s pretty obvious what happened.
The fact that you have the testicular fortitude to attempt to pass this off as ‘nothing to see here’ makes me weep for your children, or anyone else who may attempt to learn the difference between right and wrong from you.
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
*****crickets*******
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
big difference between getting the police to enforce the law and actually paying to get new laws written that benefit nobody except those that had the new laws written!
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Bob, you should do us a favor and break into my house.
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Just send him a note that joe biden would like to talk in private with him, and leave the door open … 🙂
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If someone breaks into my house and I call the cops, I’m not “lobbying” for them to be my “private security force.” The police work for all of us and the last time I checked, the hard working content creators are just as entitled to ask the police to enforce the laws as the couch potatoes
Indeed. And if this was a case of a crime occurring and the MPAA then calling law enforcement to report a crime, you’d be correct. But this is not. This is a *lobbying* disclosure. They were distinctly lobbying *by their own admission*. The issue is that they’re not reporting a crime, they’re asking the government to protect their business model and go way beyond what they should be doing — which often means making decisions based almost entirely on the say-so of one party (a party that stands to benefit).
So the rest of your comment makes no sense.
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
A more beneficial analogy would be a local business owner’s association or chamber of commerce meeting with police to discuss problems related to crimes in their area that negatively impact their business interests. It happens all of the time and as the music and film business are national and international in scope, who would you expect them to talk to?
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
A more beneficial analogy would be a local business owner’s association or chamber of commerce meeting with police to discuss problems related to crimes in their area that negatively impact their business interests.?
No, a more beneficial analogy would be a local chamber of commerce meeting with the police to discuss problems unrelated to crimes in their area that negatively impact their business interests.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Like it or not there are violations of criminal statutes related to infringement. So the analogy is spot on.
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Yes. Which have successfully been prosecuted once. That’s a large miss-to-hit ratio, considering copyright has been around for over 300 years.
Re: Re: Re:3 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Like it or not there are violations of criminal statutes related to infringement. So the analogy is spot on.
Like it or not, we’re not discussing enforcement of criminal infringement. So my analogy is spot on.
Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
They’re “lobbying” for copyright law to be enforced, because their product is being ripped off and they are entitled to protection.
Stop trying to pretend it’s about anything other than that. You’re not fooling anyone and you just look silly.
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
oh jesus, man, is it any coincidence at all that this particular article about lobbying receives so much attention from the same troll?
i mean, could it get any more obvious what’s happening here? Stop trying to pretend it’s about anything other than that. You’re not fooling anyone and you just look silly.
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Okay, SO they’re not the same troll, but the avatar similarities where pretty confusing, the original point still stands
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“They’re “lobbying” for copyright law to be enforced, because their product is being ripped off and they are entitled to protection.”
Hm. Many, MANY years ago I purchased a little vinyl 45 record I was gaga over called “I Think I Love You” by David Cassidy.
I played it so much I wore it out and had to purchase another one.
Then an album came out with the song on it I ‘just had to have’ so I purchased that.
Then I purchased it on a cassette.
Then I purchased it on an 8 track.
Then I purchased it on a CD.
Now I finally have an mp3 of it so I can FINALLY stop PURCHASING THE SAME DAMN SONG by the SAME DAMN ARTIST.
WHO IS GETTING/HAS BEEN RIPPED OFF? Rumble on TechDirt…
Re: Re: Re:2 calling the cops is not "lobbying"
then don’t buy it
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“If someone breaks into my house and I call the cops, I’m not “lobbying” for them to be my “private security force.” “
You are if you pay them $400,000 before you call them.
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If someone might have taken a picture of my house and I call the cops, I’m not “lobbying” for them to be my “private security force.”
There, fixed
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
> If someone breaks into my house and I call
> the cops, I’m not “lobbying” for them to be
> my “private security force.”
No, but if you spend $400,000 buying the cops brand new cars and equipment in exchange for the promise that they’ll give you and your house top priority over everyone else, you are lobbying them.
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If someone breaks into my house and I call the cops,
They won’t bother to turn up. Too busy working for the MPAA etc…
Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
“the hard working content creators”
LOL… we are talking about the labels who routinely rip off artists, remember? The major beneficiaries of these laws are the middlemen, not the creators.
Anyway, your analogy is broken. For it to be correct, your calling the police would be based on zero evidence (equivalent to “I think that guy over there took some of my stuff but I can’t tell you if it was him and can’t prove I lost anything”), still be in possession of your stuff (infringement != theft because you’ve lost nothing tangible) and divert police resources from other, more serious crimes to protect what you think you might have lost.
“just as entitled to ask the police to enforce the laws as the couch potatoes”
When you start learning the ways of the real world, you might realise that “us vs. them” doesn’t exist outside of crappy movies, and that the laws these people are trying to force through negatively affect content creators who don’t happen to have sold their souls to major corporations.
Again with the dark allusions to government corruption Jay? If you have an accusation to make, make it. BTW, have you ever bothered to make your position known to anyone outside the Techdirt echo chamber? How much have you donated to the groups that are supposed to be carrying your flag like EFF, PK and CDT? I’d wager it’s a big zero on both.
Re: Re:
Dude, the US Government makes FIFA look like a haven of saints.
Re: Re: Re:
At least, appearance-wise.
Crony Capitalism at it’s best, get used to it, that’s the way things work now.
Hey Masnick, if you object so much to MPAA/RIAA using US law enforcement as its private police force, where is the article lauding private right of action under the Protect IP Act? Oh, that’s right. You don’t want law enforcement involved, nor do you want the studios and record labels involved either.
I must admit, as a shameless piracy apologist you are without peer.
Re: Re:
Oh, that’s right. You don’t want law enforcement involved, nor do you want the studios and record labels involved either.
I can’t speak for Mike, but I know I want copyright infringement back in it’s proper place on the list of priorities for things we need our government to look in to. You know, towards the bottom.
Seriously, you can’t think of any crimes that are perhaps more important and deserve these resources? None?
Side question: What is your definition of ‘piracy apologist’? Just so I know what you mean when you type it.
Are you surprised, honestly? America (post 1900) has been founded on corruption and organised crime.. what’s new in this story?
Re: Re:
@purple AC:
God, you are so full of shit. In terms of corruption, the US is 22/178 in the world. Tied with Belgium and ahead of France, Spain and Portugal. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
Re: Re: Re:
Said the pot to the kettle.
Re: Re: Re:
That chart is based on surveys gauging the perception of corruption. I’m not saying it’s not valuable – it clearly is, and perception can be a good indicator – but it is hardly conclusive.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That chart is based on surveys gauging the perception of corruption. I’m not saying it’s not valuable – it clearly is, and perception can be a good indicator – but it is hardly conclusive
No only that, but it’s a ranking of corruption relative to others. That makes no comment on the absolute level of corruption.
That said, I actually don’t find the arguments that there’s significant corruption here all that persuasive. I believe that in most instances, those supporting such things really do believe they’re doing the right thing.
I still believe there are inherent corruption issues, but I don’t think corruption is the real issue here. It may be a symptom of something else in terms of regulatory capture more than anything else.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yeah well, we’ll leave the full-on conspiracy theorizing to Tim 😀
I agree that there’s no giant corrupt machine at work – but there are lots of little pieces of semi-corruption contributing to a very broken system. In fact that’s kind of how I feel about humanity and its morals in broader philosophical terms: there are very few “evil” people, but every single person contributes at least a little bit to the grand universal wrongness that fucks with us all…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Hey now, it’s not “semi-corruption”; the correct term is “ethically-challenged”.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
OMFG… I agree with what Mike Masnick said (here)
Re: Re: Re:
So, because everybody else does it to some extent, it’s okay to look the other way? Pathetic…but on par from what I’ve come to expect from people like you.
Re: Re:
Well, Pollyanna’s twin sister below begs to differ. Based solely on one bogus report written by folks with agendas, just like him.
Re: Re:
and I thought the US was founded on genocide… silly me.
Re: Re: Re:
No, that was Texas.
Mike, I really love the site. It’s great that you and the other guys bring things like this to light, but in almost every single article it seems there’s always that one extra sentence or two that isn’t needed.
The extra part about VCR’s wasn’t needed. The article made it’s point without it. Saying that the FBI could make something illegal kills so much of what was right with the article because the FBI doesn’t create laws, they only enforce them. In my personal opinion you should have ended with “Law enforcement should not be influenced by the desires of private companies.” That sentence completely makes the point. It stands on it’s own because it is absolutely true and it didn’t need the little what-if dramatic flair after it.
Keep up the good work, but try to stay clear of the dramatic. It honestly takes something away from your work.
Re: Re:
When the VCR came out, Jack Valenti of the MPAA called it the “boston strangler of the film industry” – THAT’S dramatic. The line here is 100% accurate: if they had had their way, we would not have VCRs. The MPAA was actively lobbying to stop them.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not disputing the point that the MPAA didn’t want the VCR to exist. The line isn’t 100% accurate unless at some point the FBI has been given the power to make laws and say what is and isn’t illegal.
It’s dramatization at the end of a well written article that isn’t needed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. I think it’s a very slight dramatization that does a good job of underlining the point being made. It also points to the fact that while the FBI may not officially make the laws, the fact that they are charged with enforcing them DOES give them a certain amount of between-the-lines power in determining what’s illegal and what isn’t. That’s pretty much unavoidable with law enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
In the end, it’s a judge that determines if the FBI was correct. The FBI will use the law in awful ways to get the results they want, but I can’t agree with the idea that they make the final decision on what is illegal or create laws, at least not yet anyway.
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that last sentence.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Fair enough – agree to disagree it is. But I think the broader point – that the MPAA cannot be trusted to evaluate new technologies – is an important one.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I certainly agree with you on that. The only time the MPAA should be evaluating any technology is if they’re working towards implementing it in order to better serve their customers.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Without wishing to restart this, Marcus had a fair point.
The issue is that if the FBI had like ICE today been able to seize VCRs for infringement on the say so of the industry which basically said that it was their only use and having the end (from in the end) where a judge actually says if they were right or not as far away as it is for those whose domain names were seized by ICE then VCRs would probably never have become popular and the industry would be making a lot less money and probably still complaining about how TV destroyed the film industry.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
None of the VCR analogies ever work.
Only if someone tried to ban the VCR *now* would the analogy work.
Who cares if somebody offered an opinion prior to a piece of tech being introduced. There was no data to confirm or deny the suspicions.
That is not the case with the subjects discussed here; we have over a decade of data.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Yeah, over a decade of data to show the music business expanding and the movie business posting some of their best earnings for decades but still claiming that internet piracy is doing them harm in some incredible way.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Indeed we have hundreds of years of tax returns on those people claiming harm to prove no harm actually occurred is that fantastic or what?
Re: Re: Re:7 Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Because the MPAA still tries to ban the DVD Recorder, CSS scrambling, and make Google TV, something to make TV overall better, either illegal or difficult for their customers…
Let’s not forget the windowing they continue to do (which piracy now plays a part), the regionalization, and all of the ways the movie industry tries to control the market through regulatory capture.
Yeah, the VCR analogy works, and the data from *not* banning that technology can still be used today.
Re: Re: Re:
Zounds!! Out gallops Sir Marcus of the Order of the Brown Nose ready further the ridiculous argument of his liege lord.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol you’re really starting to come apart at the seams, huh?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Just having a bit of fun Marcus, thanks for being a sport.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You wouldn’t know fun if it showed up wearing satin lingerie. Every time you make a joke, Louis CK’s hairline recedes another inch.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Dammit, I don’t want him copying me!!!!!!!!! THIEF!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yeah, because that works so well, LOL.
Re: Re:
@red AC:
He can’t help himself. Turning wild claims and outlandish conclusions into catch phrases is at the core of his writing. He’s provided countless laughs (at his own expense) for people who are forwarded his tripe as examples of the substance of the arguments against various copyright bills, policies or enforcement actions. Masnick has clearly staked out his turf as the clown prince of piracy apologists and his laughable, overzealous drama is integral to his buffoonish charm.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re just being a dick.
You’re one of those people who can’t understand that the general public doesn’t necessarily want things for free, they just don’t want it served up the way the media industries are serving it when there are better ways. People don’t want the government working with corporations to better both their bottom lines while screwing over the public. No one wants to be nickel and dimed to death paying multiple times for the same thing in different formats.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I am being a dick. And what you just described is reasonable, but far narrower than the agenda espoused here.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
ur dick is non exsistant so u try to wave it about online
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
What I just described is what most people who come to this site want.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
@red AC:
That’s what they say they want. But they attack every single attempt to legitimately stem the flow of infringing material. Never, do they offer their own proposals to address the situation.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
On this site, many many times have they stated exactly how to address the situation,
add value, give the customers a reason to buy etc etc etc., but as it doesn’t involve undermining basic rights whether through or bypassing legislation you don’t consider them valid.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Look at Steam and Origin. Go on, I’ll wait.
Can you spot the difference between the two?
That underlines the difference between price and value.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Never, do they offer their own proposals to address the situation
Have you ever actually read the site? I spend an inordinate amount of time showing people who actually create content how to make more money.
You claim I don’t offer proposals? You’re full of it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Proposals to address rampant infringing. CDT et al are at least in the game offering language and taking part in deliberations on proposed laws and policies. You only offer criticism and absurd conclusions about the potential impact of these laws and policies.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Offering language and proposed laws are all very well,
such a pity that they are simply saying to avoid getting feet wet we should all walk on the ceiling.
Their proposals, don’t, can’t and will never work.
You cannot actually prevent people accessing content, there are too many ways around it. You cannot by legislation or DRM prevent people copying.
What this site is all about is about businesses not destroying themselves by wasting time and money attempting to command the waves to advance no further when the real solutions are to adapt business strategies to the fact that the tide is very definitely coming in and to take advantage of the new possibilities that that opens up.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
If Protect IP and felony Streaming bills are so feckless, then why the hue and cry? Wy not simply ignore it. My guess is that 90% of the people are casual infringers and will not utilize the work arounds that will enable others continue to free load
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
If most people are like me they will ignore it and will speak against it, those are not mutually exclusive you know 🙂
Also those laws are not only feckless they are useless, I see my 50 year old wife pirating all the time and I doubt she even knows she is pirating, now go explain to people they can’t take a picture of a magazine to show to their friends or try to explain why they can’t record music from radio stations please I want to see you come out alive.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Because they are shitty law. Both are so vague as to be more twistable than a champion contortionist made fo elastic.
Answer these three questions:
a) What is “dedicated to infringing activities”?
b) What is “purely for commercial gain”?
c) What is a “rogue site”?
And don’t give me that crap about just linking to torrents instead of everything, that’s doing the same damn thing these fuckwits always do. And I should know. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Proposals to address rampant infringing.
Yes. You know how you address rampant infringement? By putting in place a better freaking business model. So, yes, I am pointing to proposals to do just that.
The problem is that folks like yourself are so blind to reality you think that infringement is the problem. It’s not. It’s the symptom of a failure on the part of an industry that refuses to adapt.
CDT et al are at least in the game offering language and taking part in deliberations on proposed laws and policies. You only offer criticism and absurd conclusions about the potential impact of these laws and policies.
Why waste time offering up language for bogus bills that aren’t needed and will only serve to do more harm than good?
You are so mentally focused on this being a policy issue that you don’t realize that it’s not. Why should I care if CDT wants to get involved and waste their time that way? I think it’s a mistake because they’re stooping to your game, and pretending this is a policy issue.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
The industry is changing Masnick. You know that. But it’s like turning the fucking Queen Mary. large corporations aren’t nimble. It takes time. But sites like Hulu, Netflix, MLB, NBA are eventually going to replace cable TV in it’s current form and that’s another complication. These cable guys aren’t just going to roll over. So as the transition is taking place (and it clearly, irrevocably is) there needs to be laws in place so transition is somewhat orderly and you don’t have the current pandemonium. The move to a la carte programming will damper a major underlying demand for pirated product. With that comes more sane pricing models. You won’t have to subscribe to 200 channels of dog shit in order to get the two you watch. CDT and company are realists. They deal with the world as it is, not as they want it to be. Something you should consider. These laws are going to be passed. I just posted the CNET article on the graduated response agreement that has been firmed up and will be voluntarily implemented. Again, EFF, CDT and PK were all part of the process helping to make something workable and just.
I get that you don’t like the game. But really you only have two choices, either play it or heckle from up in the cheap seats. Your call.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
The cheap seats have all the good parties.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Until you post a business plan, as in, a REAL one, one that a person could go to investors with and succeed with…
You’re just full of hot air.
Until you do that, you’re just using the “business model” meme as a cover for your piracy apologism.
Any business that gets their product ripped off does not have a business model problem, they have a law enforcement problem.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Copying is getting easier so we should try and make it harder, by putting people in jail.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Not people. Our customers as well.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
You’ve heard of this funny little film called Kung Fu Panda, right?
The pivotal scene is where the lead finds out that the key toi being the prophesied hero is that, “There is no secret ingredient.”
There is no secret ingredient for success. That’s why there is no “One size fits all” business model that will make everyone a mutlimillionaire.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
People go to banks and investors with business models every day. They then are judged on whether or not their plan will likely succeed or fail.
Masnick (who has a business degree) accuses the record industry of having a business model problem, yet then refuses to provide an alternate business plan that a bank or investor could consider.
He’s totally full of shit, and this is but one example of that fact.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
What are you talking about? I’ve only been hanging around here a few months and I’ve seen plenty ideas and examples posted – by Mr. Masnick. Hello.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
“then refuses to provide an alternate business plan that a bank or investor could consider.”
Wow, perhaps this is why the record industry is failing – you people are not only stupid enough to not realise the reasons why your business is failing, you also insist that the people pointing this out to you have to provide the solution for you.
This sloth and idiocy is also apparently backed up with illiteracy – Mike has written hundreds of articles discussing alternative models that are already being used or experimented with to varying degrees of success, and these articles often also discuss the flaws and/or benefits inherent with each model.
It’s not Mike’s fault that your industry is screwing itself, nor that you lack the common sense to see the alternatives.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
“…you also insist that the people pointing this out to you have to provide the solution for you.”
Great point. Everyone ELSE should do the work FOR them – and PAY them.
What an industry. Me thinks we need a whole new “entertainment industry”. This one is corrupted, broken, out of touch, inhumane, lazy and becoming utterly useless. All they’re good for now is causing trouble (they’ve nothing better to do?).
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Here’s a proposal…
For the next few months we embark upon a massive campaign to get just $1.00 from those of us who agree with the stand of Mr. Masnick. When we reach $500,000 we “lobby” these gov’t entities ourselves and see what happens.
What do you suppose they would do?
Bet with the right effort that $500,000 could be reached, too. Just $1.00? I’d be in – in a heartbeat for 10 times that as I imagine many others would, as well.
Just every day little guy citizen’s – no organizations. Because the way it’s supposed to be, is government remains OUR servants – not our masters.
Re: Re: Re:
He’s provided countless laughs (at his own expense)
It’s funny to see a shill like you and his paying corporate masters suckin’ each other’s dicks over this. Granted, since all you’ve achieved so far is a really, really strong belief that those little schemes of yours will actually make a dent in piracy. Try again, suckers, LOL!!
Re: Re: Re:
He’s provided countless laughs (at his own expense) for people who are forwarded his tripe as examples of the substance of the arguments against various copyright bills,
Right, and that’s why you and your ilk take him seriously enough to show up here all the time and whine. Or is it just one poorly paid shilltard who finally wised up stopping to use the same IP address? Impressive.
He can’t help himself. Turning wild claims and outlandish conclusions into catch phrases is at the core of his writing. He’s provided countless laughs (at his own expense) for people who are forwarded his tripe as examples of the substance of the arguments against various copyright bills, policies or enforcement actions. Masnick has clearly staked out his turf as the clown prince of piracy apologists and his laughable, overzealous drama is integral to his buffoonish charm.
and i actively look at the writings of peple paid to think in a certain manner(do you even try to not sound like a paid flunky?) and laugh cause you’ll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re: Re:
Ooooooo…. the revolution. You’re going to what? Overthrow the government because they’re making it harder to freeload movies and songs. That’s good one, thanks for the laugh.
Re: Re: Re:
your butt hurts really bad huh?
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I’d shoot whoever the hell told me they were going to steal my money.
The last person that tried that went into hospital with acute alcohol poisoning.
Re: Re: Re:
Ooooooo…. the revolution. You’re going to what?
Easy, move to darknets and sneakernets (harddrives, flashdrives are cheap, you know) and NOT PAY A FUCKING DIME TO YOU ASSHOLES.
Who’s oooooooing now, sucker 😉
Zounds!! Out gallops Sir Marcus of the Order of the Brown Nose ready further the ridiculous argument of his liege lord.
He can’t help himself. Turning wild claims and outlandish conclusions into catch phrases is at the core of his writing. He’s provided countless laughs (at his own expense) for people who are forwarded his tripe as examples of the substance of the arguments against various copyright bills, policies or enforcement actions. Masnick has clearly staked out his turf as the clown prince of piracy apologists and his laughable, overzealous drama is integral to his buffoonish charm.
samefag
Silly me I thought lobbying Law enforcement was, well I am not sure of the technical word but, bribing.
Or does it not count when it the department instead of the regular flat foot?
Waitwhat!? they sent money to the VP’s office ? dont they own Biden already ?
they might find it harder...
to pay the local police forces in addition to the federal forces under the DOJ. Lots of police forces are short of money, so they would welcome the cash, as long as it’s in plain envelopes delivered to the right location.
However there are quite a few agencies, and some of them might still be honest and consider it bribery.
Bribing the federal forces is easy enough; just contribute to “election campaign” funds and then get your own attorneys to work in DOJ and FBI.
Rogue
What the f*ck is a “rogue site”?
I mean really, either a site is engaging in illegal activity, or it isn’t.
If it is, then take it down and arrest its operators. If it isn’t, then its activities are, by definition, perfectly legal and there’s no difference between it and any other site on the internet.
Re: Rogue
Whoa, the definition of a “rogue site” is what needs to be defined before we can go and arrest people unjustly.
Re: Re: Rogue
Oh, come ON, Jay! The Daily Show is a rogue site! MSNBC is a rogue site! Youporn- err, that’s not a rogue site, we’ll just keep uploading copyrighted materiel up and masturbate profuse…err, confiscate it for personal use.
Re: Re: Rogue
> the definition of a “rogue site” is what
> needs to be defined before we can go and
> arrest people unjustly.
It’s a meaningless term conjured up by the entertainment industry to pejoratively label anything they don’t like to convince people that there’s something nefarious afoot with sites which are otherwise perfectly legal.
They know that these sites are doing anything illegal, but they don’t like them, so they make up this term, which has absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever, in order to make the sites they don’t like suspect in the eyes of the public.
Re: Re: Re: Rogue
“It’s a meaningless term conjured up by the entertainment industry to pejoratively label anything they don’t like to convince people that there’s something nefarious afoot with sites which are otherwise perfectly legal.”
Reminds me of what happened when they started with the ‘pirate’ label. Kinda makes me want to start my own website, something along the lines of TheRogueSite.org or maybe TheRogueTavern.net
Don't you mean bribery?
What is the difference between lobbying and bribery? I’d really like to know, because they seem like the same thing to me.
Graduated response a done deal
Bad news for freeloaders:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20073522-261/top-isps-poised-to-adopt-graduated-response-to-piracy/?tag=mncol;posts
Re: Graduated response a done deal
Bad news for anonymous idiots who don’t understand electronics. “Freeloaders” like you taking advantage of these messages are wasting your time.
Re: Graduated response a done deal
The sources cautioned that a final agreement has yet to be signed and that the partnership could still unravel but added that at this point a deal is within reach and is on track to be unveiled sometime next month.
Has not been signed and could still unravel. Yes, they’ve finally done it. Piracy is now over. That was easy. Thanks for coming.
Re: Re: Graduated response a done deal
Keep wishing away. In the meantime, here’s a different flavor:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/isps-plot-graduated-response-to-piracy-can-this-plan-really-work/51233
Re: Re: Re: Graduated response a done deal
Yep, piracy is definitely over now. You won. Congratulations. And I’m sure the half a billion people worldwide who’ve had their favorite services shut down will now just say “gee, shucks,” kick their heels, and start paying you money.
Honestly, despite much of TechDirt’s fears of collateral damage, which I’m sure is a very real danger, I’ve decided that I’m rooting for your new laws. I really am. Getting much of the public away from label garbage will be the best thing that ever happened to free independent music.
Re: Graduated response a done deal
Bad news for freeloaders:
Dream on, sucker.
You don’t think of lobbying law enforcement because there is no such thing. It’s bribery, plain and simple.
Re: Re:
You don’t think of lobbying law enforcement because there is no such thing. It’s bribery, plain and simple.
Or, as it’s known in capitalism, “investing”.
Re: Re: Re:
so when I get pulled over for speeding and hand the officer a couple of checks for $24.99 its not bribery but lobbying??
“In the end, you will lose”.
{sigh}
“The DMCA is around.”
DMCA isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. In internet terms, it may as well be written in sanskrit. Look for an update in the near future.
“Meanwhile the movie industry only uses Netflix and doesn’t want to make their own infrastructure.”
Well there’s Hulu, Amazon and more. Plus more coming
“All of the business model problems going on aren’t going to solve those problems. And still you want to link to the graduated response as if that’s going to fix everything for your masters. Bravo, but still misguided by a long shot.”
Graduated response is just one of many tools. Protect IP will hurt the foreign sites and Felony Streaming addresses a hole in current legislation.
“Add felony streaming and Protect IP and it’s all over for all but the most hardcore infringers. “
“You really don’t see the consequences of trying to lock up people for embedding or going after domains, do you? Two things could possibly happen here:”
“1) The judges snap back hard with the Rojadirecta or other precedents”
Rojadirecta is in litigation. Reading the tea leaves, I not exactly trembling. I don’t know what other precedents you are talking about. Likely, nor do you.
“2) The piracy problem you “solve” migrates to newer areas.”
Not for millions of users who aren’t technologically savvy or are otherwise unwilling to use untrustworthy alternative DNS systems.
“The end game for you seems to be getting these laws passed. Bravo. The consequences of the passing is what everyone is discussing. Pile it up with all of the other problems of government and you’re preparing a massive backlash. But I guess, being insulated away from the discussion is the name of the game, right? “
These laws aren’t the end. Just a tourniquet. There’s a lot more work to be done. If by backlash you mean the sort of hissy-fits thrown on Techdirt, I don’t find that alarming. Amusing, but not alarming. Perhaps you can join in the AC’s revolution where he said I’d be among the first to be lined up and shot after the freeloader coup d’etat.
Re: Re:
Perhaps you can join in the AC’s revolution where he said I’d be among the first to be lined up and shot after the freeloader coup d’etat.
Sounds like an invitation, to me.
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like an invitation, to me.
He’d be running around like a cockroach in the light, trying to find some place to hide and denying he ever supported such things as he has.
@jay
“The judges snap back hard with the Rojadirecta or other precedents”
Do you mean those same judges that so many Techdirtbags characterize as being corrupt and in the pocket of Big Content?
“Aaand again, you’re grasping at straws.”
I don’t know what straws you think I’m grasping. But why don’t you go and find a big-boy tie and hear the news from you own elected representative.
Re: *Yawn*
“”Meanwhile the movie industry only uses Netflix and doesn’t want to make their own infrastructure.”
Well there’s Hulu, Amazon and more. Plus more coming”
HUGE notice for you, most downloads actually come from outside the US. I don’t know how you missed that data.
“Graduated response is just one of many tools. Protect IP will hurt the foreign sites and Felony Streaming addresses a hole in current legislation.”
Right, because it’s been so effective in Canada, France, the UK, and Korea so far… And streaming, cutting into multimillion dollar profits… Really? You’re going with that logic?
” I don’t know what other precedents you are talking about.”
The domain seizures that are endorsed by the government are going to have more people rise up against them. That’s one conclusion. Especially pulling this “no due process” BS in the US. Of course, you’ll naturally say “but it IS in the bill! Rojadirecta, being a foreign site, doesn’t qualify!” Well, we’ll just have to see. RD gets its site back though, I’m sure there’s at leat 4 more sites waiting to take on the government that doesn’t seem to know what it’s doing so far.
“Not for millions of users who aren’t technologically savvy or are otherwise unwilling to use untrustworthy alternative DNS systems.”
Perfect, keep the populace uninformed about other options such as opendns.com or *gasp* mooo.com. Seems more and more that no matter what “holes” you look to plug, there’s going to be a lot more to fill. It must be hard to admit that law and litigation can’t solve everything…
“These laws aren’t the end.”
Yeah, we’ve heard of the New World Order or whatever. I’ve heard the conspiracy theories and all that. Blah, blah, blah. The fact that these laws are passing doesn’t mean they’ll hold muster. Just because you believe in them, doesn’t mean, they’re lawful. It just means people will be more apt to disregard them.
“Do you mean those same judges that so many Techdirtbags characterize as being corrupt and in the pocket of Big Content?”
[citation needed] You’re the only one saying that right now. I criticize the legislative branch and executive branch for being pretty corrupt but you just seem to use a huge brush for comments.
“I don’t know what straws you think I’m grasping.”
The straws that say you seem to know how I discuss policy issues with my elected officials. You don’t. You like to criticize. Meanwhile, I’ve had dialogues cut short with the form letters about how “s/he is looking into an issue” when in fact, they’re not. No follow ups, nothing in the way of a speech about this issue or that. When a politician votes over 80% in line with a political party, there’s a problem. They don’t represent their constituents, they represent something else entirely. So again, you’re misinformed on my plans.
Law enforcement should not be influenced by the desires of private companies
NOBODY should be influenced by the desires of private companies. If those in power weren’t a bunch of idiotic, weak-willed, spineless twerps, they’d just laugh lobbyists out of their offices and run things their way. That’s how a republic is supposed to work! The one with the best ideas gets the most votes, and then runs things as they see fit.
As much as I’d like to blame lobbying for America’s current state of corpocracy, the fact of the matter is that if the people elected were actually competent, lobbying would never work, so those companies would’ve given up on the idea long ago.