US Chamber Of Commerce Quickly Showing That It's Out Of Touch, As Google, CEA Consider Dropping Out

from the which-sector-creates-jobs? dept

We’ve been pointing out for a while just how incredibly out of touch the US Chamber of Commerce is these days. The giant lobbying firm (not to be confused with the US Department of Commerce — a government agency), has consistently been taking a position that is anti-innovation, anti-growth and anti-jobs. It does this by supporting protectionist policies for just a few large companies who pay it a ton. It never supports innovative upstarts. Over the past few years, that’s meant that it’s been losing the true innovators, the companies who actually create jobs and contribute to economic growth today. Apple dumped the US CoC two years ago over its anti-science position on climate change. Yahoo recently refused to renew its membership out of disgust over the Chamber’s position on PROTECT IP/SOPA. And now there are reports saying that both Google and the Consumer Electronics Association are considering dropping out of the Chamber over its support of PROTECT IP/SOPA. Kind of silly to call yourself the “US Chamber of Commerce” when all of the companies in industries that actually involve innovation are dropping your for your anti-innovation position, isn’t it?

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: apple, cea, google, us chamber of commerce, yahoo

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “US Chamber Of Commerce Quickly Showing That It's Out Of Touch, As Google, CEA Consider Dropping Out”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
114 Comments
Jaysays:

Re: Re: Radicalism or reform? You decide

We need two things in this country:

Vote reform
Electoral reform

Vote reform comes in finding a better process to elect people in office than the current First to Post system that allows for attacks on them to add votes without receipts.

Electoral reform allows for less money in politics so everyone can get a shot. It would restrict gerrymandering, allow for competitive races and not allow for safe campaigns that are currently the norm in this country. You have a 50-50 shot at being the next person in office. Why are the odds so far against a third party in this country? Get the money out of politics. Make it a requirement that only a certain amount can go in for all sides, and the federal government is barred from assisting anyone in the interest of fairness.

Here’s hoping the OWS crowd exposes these two major problems that continue to plague the US. I have a strong feeling if you make one (voting) to work, everything else will line up.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Imagine what we could have today if they actually did what they claimed they stood for.

Hopefully more players will leave them and not wait for the convenient answer of we just opted to not renew. That they will leave and make public statements that the CoC is just focused on helping a few members stifle innovation that scares them.

As more large players withdraw the CoC will have to try to spend even more money to help officials overlook they only represent those who refuse to embrace the future. And those officials will be in the sad position of having to justify why they support the people “donating” to them rather than the country.

bobsays:

Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

This blog is filled with knee-jerk supporters of Big Search and Big Hardware. Anything that threatens their royalty-free access to tons of content is flogged.

But I submit that most Americans would rather have a strong copyright rule than unfettered access to all of the free content that Big Search and Big Hardware can serve up. Why? Because most Americans aren’t lazy couch potatoes. They have jobs and they know that the creators are working hard. Just as they want to be paid, they know that the creators need to pay for health insurance, a roof and some food too.

Furthermore, most Americans understand that strong copyright favors them when they actually create something. Most Americans like to keep control over their creations. Oh, they’re happy to share with things like the GPL or the CC license, but they want to be the ones to make the decision.

This blog believes that it’s the billionaires at Big Search and Big Hardware who get to make unilateral decisions and keep all of the revenue that comes from their royal declaration that copyright doesn’t hold in this case. They’re doing something cool and that should be a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.

(Pay no attention to those crypto scientists doing something with DRM. That’s not innovation. Nope. It can’t be. Innovation is just a buzzword that applies to infringement.)

abc gumsays:

Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Apparently you missed the part where PROTECT IP/SOPA has more to do with censorship than it does with copyright or trademark.

Do you have a link to the study or survey which supports your claim that “most Americans would rather have a strong copyright rule than unfettered access”?

“most Americans understand that strong copyright favors them” I highly doubt this claim. You got anything in support of it?

Yeah – I didn’t think so.

“This blog believes … “
… in fair use

“Innovation is just a buzzword that applies to infringement”
And this is exactly what the PROTECT IP/SOPA people think.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Dude. It’s not censorship to shut down a site that’s either infringing or leading others to infringers. Censorship is when someone stops you from expressing your own views, not when someone stops you from stealing, borrowing or simply repeating another person’s opinions. Sheesh.

These sites have nothing to do with free expression. They have nothing to do with fair use. They wouldn’t even qualify for authorship under the Feist decision because they add so little to the world. They’re pure leeches.

And it’s easy to make a survey say whatever you want. I’m sure 95% of the people support an artist’s right to choose what happens to their work. And I’m sure that 95% support the freedom to do what you want with your computer. The surveys prove nothing because they don’t help us split the baby.

abc gumsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

“Hey Einstein”

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

“ensoring is removing my material that I posted, not removing my material that you posted.”

Yup – and screw fair use – amirite?

“No amount of lying by the buffoon Mike Masnick will change that.”

Who is it that is attempting to effect change? Possibly you have lost sight of this tidbit – no?

abc gumsays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

For everyones edification, please define both piracy and fair use. Bonus points for drawing a well defined line between them with real world examples.

I eagerly await your well thought out response.

MrWilsonsays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Actually, some people do use Demonoid for the distribution of authorized content, so that’s not only fair use but completely legal use.

How is any person supposed to know that the content creator didn’t intentionally “leak” their own content? Some artists have come out in favor of having their content “pirated” which means that such “pirating” is de facto legal.

Not to mention fair use is only an American concept. Other countries have other laws and so Demonoid content may be legal in other places.

Also, fair use is only determined by a judge or jury in a court of law, so you can’t genuinely say anything is or isn’t fair use until it’s been taken to court. Of course, RIAA lawyers have argued in court that home copying for backup purposes or format-shifting aren’t even fair use (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6190.ars), so who is to trust an IP shill since they’ll support any argument that involves them making more money?

MrWilsonsays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

You’re assuming all torrents are illegal and infringing. You are the one who is willfully ignorant.

Nobody is pointing out which Demonoid torrents are legal or illegal, and in which jurisdictions, and for which types of use, and nobody, except a court of law, can actually determine in every scenario for every uploader/downloader which actions are legal or illegal.

Real Example: Viacom actually uploaded some of the supposedly infringing content over which it later sued YouTube for hosting infringing content.

If even the copyright holder cannot be trusted to verify which content is infringing, how do you expect anyone else to just be able to look at it and say, “yep, this is definitely infringing” ?

And of course the IP maximalist answer would be, “if you don’t know if it’s legal, don’t use it,” but that would preclude the public from using a lot of content that is legally available for free or is used in accordance with fair use principles that would stand up in court if only the user had the endless bags of money from which to pay a lawyer to defend them from corporate legal strong-arming, simply because so much content gets passed around on the internet without a reliable copyright notice. Not to mention that a lot of people will claim copyright on content that isn’t even theirs.

btrussellsays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/00211916175/why-some-easy-legal-questions-arent-always-so-easy-is-burrito-sandwich.shtml#c321

If we need lawyers to determine what a sandwich is, then I’d say ignorance of the law is an excuse.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

That’s a pretty funny statement, considering all the freetards on this site talk like lawyers when they toss out their silly semantical rationalizations for ripping off what they want to consume but not pay for.

btrussellsays:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

I don’t see/hear too many here wanting something for nothing.

Hell, I tried to buy a game the other day for the sole purpose of testing my new PC. I don’t need or want any more games. Nothing at the store interested me. Plus they had more used games than new ones. I want a new specs demanding game. I want to make this PC perform. I’ll go back and try again later, not download off of torrents, where I get my Linux fixes from.

One thing I have noticed in my lifetime though, is that people accuse others of what they themselves do. People think everyone thinks as they themselves do.

Makes me wonder at some of the accusations that fly around here.

MrWilsonsays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

“Piracy” – armed robbery, assault, rape, and/or murder on the high seas, or any action that corporate lobbyists, lawyers, and shills oppose, including consumers using media as consumers see fit; see also “IP terrorism” and “It’s all just child pr0n – won’t somebody think of the children?”.

fair use – a common misspelling of “fare use,” which involves a “pirate”/customer avoiding the payment of a fare for a use of IP that should otherwise be licensed through the proper channels for exorbitant sums.

Richardsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Hey Einstein- censoring is removing my material that I posted, not removing my material that you posted.

OK – let’s frame the copyright enforcement regime so that that is ALL that happens-big content won’t be happy with that.

The problem is that rightsholders are both lazy and greedy – they want to avoid the workload of actually sifting the infringing material from the rest and so they promote laws that will result in large amounts of collateral damage.

Plus “copyright infringement” is all too often used as a smokescreen for censorship – as numerous stories on this site attest.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

The lies that Mike Masnick tells on this site are not proof that copyright infringement is all too often used as a smokescreen for censorship.

He just tries to spin things that way to rationalize himself and you breaking the law.

Josh in CharlotteNCsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

It’s not censorship to shut down a site that’s either infringing or leading others to infringers.

Wrong. If you are shutting down a website, you are censoring the owner of that website from expressing their views.

Whether censoring the website is justified is an open question.

I’m even willing to admit that it is within the realm of possibility that censoring a website for copyright infringement could be a general societal good, although I want to see evidence or at least clearly logical reasons how and why.

But it is still censorship.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

And when you put a gangster in jail for ordering a killing, you’re censoring the gangster. It’s all speech, right? Speech is sacred!

The jails are filled with people who did nothing but talk about where and when and how to commit the crime instead of actually performing the act. They’re called accessories to the crime and they’re often given similar sentences.

Yet I’m sure you’re such a believer in free speech that you see these folks as protected by the first amendment.

Jaysays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Do you have statistics to this bob, or are you talking out of your ass?

Last I checked, prisoners were in.. ya know… PRISON because of public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, “three strikes” laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release.

But feel free to actually have a point rather than this BS you’re spouting.

Josh in CharlotteNCsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

And when you put a gangster in jail for ordering a killing, you’re censoring the gangster.

Yes, you are censoring the gangster for something he said.

It’s censorship, and yes, the First Amendment does come into play. But let’s look at the other facts:

1) This speech caused real harm – to another person’s life, their family and friends were impacted, and there is the impact and resource cost to society. There is even the cost to the other gang members who carried out the orders, as they are presumably in jail.

2) Prior to the gangster being arrested, an investigation was conducted and evidence was gathered. This evidence must be of sufficient quality. Usually a district attorney would need to sign off on the police holding the gangster when he is arrested (depending on the case, sometimes before or shortly after the arrest).

3) Shortly after the gangster was arrested, he was put before a judge and the evidence was reviewed. The judge then decides whether to hold him, pending a trial, or to release him on bail. Bail is an interesting concept in and of itself – even if the judge thinks the evidence is sufficient for the gangster to probably be found guilty, the gangster still has a chance at freedom until the trial is actually completed – all bail is is a type of insurance that the gangster will be at the trial.

4) At trial, the gangster is allowed to refute any evidence gathered against him, and supply any of his own evidence. He can hire an expert lawyer to defend him, and even if he can’t afford one, he is given a lawyer to defend him. A judge oversees the trial, and a jury of he gangster’s peers (normal member of society) decides on his guilt or innocence.

5) After trial, even if he is found guilty, there are still possibilities of appeal.

We have decided as a society that all of these steps are absolutely necessary when the government wishes to deprive someone of the various freedoms they enjoy. This is necessary for even someone who has ordered the violent killing of another human being.

Yet you wish to deprive someone of their freedom of expression via SOPA for creating a website that cannot be positively shown to even cause the slightest monetary damage to a corporation, where no evidence is required, where no presumption of innocence exists, where no prior hearing is granted, in which private entities have all the power and decision making ability, and in which appeals seem unlikely.

Martin Halsteadsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

“The jails are filled with people who did nothing but talk about where and when and how to commit the crime”

Nope.

The “attempted XXX” or “conspiracy to commit XXX” crimes that you refer to require evidence of a substantial step in aid of the proposed crime/conspiracy. E.g,:

[1] it is not illegal to talk of killing your spouse. It becomes illegal when you contact someone with the intent of hiring them to kill your spouse. (Substantial step.)

[2] It is not illegal to talk about making meth, read how to make meth, or even to post his to make meth on the internet. However, if, coupled with these steps, you buy or attempt to buy the precursor ingredients you have performed a “substantial step” and can be charged with endeavoring to manufacture a controlled substance.

Even in terrorism cases, note how the Government infiltrator always encourages or facilitates an overt step towards the conspiracy, e.g. puts them in touch with a fake assassin, fake explosives dealer etc.

Attempted (name of crime) requires just that, some form of attempt. Just talking about it seldom if ever qualifies.

Gwizsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

That is what this law does. It is a shotgun approach to a problem that needs surgical precision.

More like using a flamethrower instead of a flyswatter.

Sure, you might torch your own house and half the neighborhood, but the odds are pretty good that you’ll get that pesky fly eventually.

jupiterkansassays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

I understand your point, but the PROTECT-IP laws are not going to fix the problem.

And this “big search” you keep talking about is just one company. Why not just say Google?

And some “big hardware” companies are also “big content” companies. I’d like to hear from Sony how their hardware business is decimating their content business through piracy. Why would they make devices that can pirate their own content? Because those devices have many, many uses – including you need them to access the content. Devices that facilitate piracy are called computers, very useful and versatile tools. Perhaps you’d also be happy with a law that destroys any computer that has pirated content on it? Such laws have been proposed.

You’re trying to discredit us by saying all we want is free everything. What we really want is laws we can respect, a right to privacy and free expression, due process and judicial review, innocence until proven guilty, and blame placed on the actual criminals. You know, old-fashioned American ideals. The land of the free doesn’t mean the price.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

And you can have all of these things– but you’ve got to respect the content creators and give them a practical mechanism to police piracy.

For instance, think about how society gives out tickets to people who are caught speeding. A camera takes a picture and the plate is used to identify the car. Do people sit around and suggest that perhaps someone stole the car just as everyone around here seems to believe that a IP address is always used by someone other than the homeowner? If there are extenuating circumstances, a judge is ready to listen.

The same thing happens with most other crimes. The cops arrest and then the trial comes afterwards.

Yet around here, shutting down a web site with plenty of evidence is seen as some arbitrary move by a dictatorship. Nope. It’s not much different from what happens to every other criminal around. The cops collect evidence and then they shut it down– just as they collect evidence and arrest someone.

The line of argument is always the same– any law that would hamper Big Search’s actions is said to be terribly restrictive and what a Fascist would dream of imposing. In fact, any effort to do anything to an infringer is portrayed as evil and overly broad etc.

The fact is that the evidence indicting the IP address of the users is better than the evidence in cases where the defendant is sent away for life. Murder cases are decided with less certainty. Yet around here everyone assumes that an IP address means nothing.

Franklin G Ryzzosays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

“And you can have all of these things– but you’ve got to respect the content creators and give them a practical mechanism to police piracy. “

They have a practical mechanism to police file-sharing already. It’s called the DMCA. It is also poor legislation that hampers individual rights, but it was already passed. When content owners see that their product is being used against their wishes, they can inform the site owner and have it taken down. The content owners are the ones that have a problem with specific use of a work, and they are the ones that should express this displeasure and file a request to have it removed.

“For instance, think about how society gives out tickets to people who are caught speeding. A camera takes a picture and the plate is used to identify the car. Do people sit around and suggest that perhaps someone stole the car just as everyone around here seems to believe that a IP address is always used by someone other than the homeowner? If there are extenuating circumstances, a judge is ready to listen.”

Careful with this example because it actually goes against your argument. Speed cameras catch a vehicle, not a driver. Much like an IP address does not identify a person. Also, speed cameras are in place for the purpose of revenue generation not as a deterrent. There are no points assigned for this offense because it is impossible to determine who was driving. A small fine is issued to the owner (for state revenue generation), but there is no criminal liability.

“The same thing happens with most other crimes. The cops arrest and then the trial comes afterwards.

Yet around here, shutting down a web site with plenty of evidence is seen as some arbitrary move by a dictatorship. Nope. It’s not much different from what happens to every other criminal around. The cops collect evidence and then they shut it down– just as they collect evidence and arrest someone.”

There are safeguards in place for the police to do their job and for the court systems to do theirs. One of these safeguards is called due process. The police cannot arbitrarily just arrest someone without evidence, and that evidence needs to be substantially more than simply at the request of a private citizen or organization. The current legislation is a clear attempt to circumvent due process, and this is one of the major reasons that people have issue with it.

Onnalasays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

You and I both know that’s not how this law will be used. That’s just what the people pushing the law say it’s about. Go and read it. Youtube, google, facebook, myspace, mailing lists, usenet, and email all fit under the ‘rouge’ site definitions of that law. I can’t work out what part of the internet doesn’t fall under the law.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

I’m sure the law will be used to target sites like ISOHunt, PirateBay and other sites that seem to believe that it’s all okay to give away other peoples’ hard work without asking.

Will it be used to target others? Perhaps, but not without bending the law to the point when it might break.

And I think you’re hyperventilating by saying that every part of the Internet will “fall under the law” whatever that means. I don’t know where you get this impression. Every blog I visit is filled with original content that was largely created by the owner. I rarely bump into infringing content because I don’t frequent these sites. So I can’t imagine it making a darn bit of difference in the aboveboard internet where people actually do their own work.

But I do know that the other sites are out there and I’m amazed that they can be so brash about their offerings. So I’m sure it will be nice to target them initially.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tried to FTFY, but it's just too broken (gibberish generator on?)

Dude. It’s not censorship to shut down a site that’s either promoting political dissent or leading others to think about political dissent. Censorship is when someone stops you from expressing your own views, not when someone stops you from repeating the political propaganda that they don’t support, or from simply repeating another person’s opinions (as long as it agrees with the current political party). Sheesh.

These sites have nothing to do with free expression. They have nothing to do with fair use. They wouldn’t even qualify for authorship under the Feist decision because they add so little to the world. They’re pure leeches.

And it’s easy to make a survey say whatever you want. I’m sure 95% of the people support a totalitarian’s right to choose what happens to their subjects. And I’m sure that 95% support the freedom to do what you want with your computer. The surveys prove nothing because they don’t help us split the baby.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

“Most Americans like to keep control over their creations.”
It is a shame that large corporations demand they be signed over for the creators “best interests” which seem to include making sure that payments are as low as possible to them.

And I doubt most Americans would enjoy the lengths that Big Media want to make sure that you have to pay everytime you might possibly see/hear/think about something they claim ownership of. That they do not want to have their access to the world limited to remove everything Big Media does not want you to know about.

Big Media fears a new platform where creators can completely manage their works and but them out of the process. That means more money for the content creators, is that a bad thing?

Try harder…

3/10

jupiterkansassays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Film and music in America has largely been controlled by members of the RIAA and MPAA. If an artist wanted to make a living, they were pretty much forced to deal with a member company. That’s changed a lot with music, but it’s still true with film. So nobody’s putting a gun to their head, but the MPAA and RIAA is all about making sure there aren’t any other options if an artist wants to make a living. That’s what being a gatekeeper is all about.

Try getting a song on the radio without the RIAA, or a movie in the theatres without the MPAA, or a show on television. It used to be impossible. Now thanks to the internet it’s slightly easier, which is why they’re scrambling to control everything that happens on the internet with regards to their business interests.

I don’t blame them – that’s what they’re supposed to do. I blame is people in Washington who seem content to do their bidding. I suspect the reason is that they love having mass media in the hands of a few major players, because it’s make it easy for them to manipulate public opinion, and they can keep the major players for digging into their activities too deeply.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Please point out the choices that aren’t currently being assaulted because they are rogue sites.

Please point out where the partners of big content take the time to make sure payments owed goto the right people instead of just the big players.

We could have more choices for artists, if the big players were to stop stomping their foot and claiming any business model but theirs is based on infringement and stealing their content.

Choice, like the UK rapper who had his music taken down by a large corporation who wanted to buy the song for their artist but had not gotten the rights actually?

Choice, like anyone who wants to repeat the Beiber road to success. Perform other peoples music and put it on YouTube to get noticed. Except the labels will swat the files down claiming losses.

Choice, like doing everything they can to try and kill RedBox and Netflix despite the proven decrease in “piracy” these companies lead to.

Choice is supposed to be free, not legislated that you can pick one of the nearly identical companies who have monopoly control of the industry.

The Incoherent Onesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Actually I believe that you are wrong. The Content companies are trying to kill the venues that upcoming artists and creators are using to get themselves known. They are the gate keepers, and they want everyone to think that you have to go through them in order to get anywhere. THATS how they make their money. Sure there is some illegal traffic on PtP networks, but how much is the legitimate free exchange or ideas and information? You shut them down, and you silence them all. Not just the ones who are infringing.

MrWilsonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

When the big entertainment companies dominate the distribution channels for entertainment (by, for instance, owning television and radio stations in addition to owning production studios, controlling what content is promoted and what content is ignored), it’s akin to the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. They own the way to heaven and you’ll pay for your indulgences if you want in or else be excommunicated.

Your conception of choice is akin to, “worship me in heaven or burn in the hell of artistic obscurity.”

Fortunately, the internet has open sourced the religion of art. Now artists can get a direct line to their audiences without having to go through a priest/middleman. The church of entertainment needs to adapt or give up the holy ghost.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

If only this were true. Musicians have always pressed their own disks and sold their own tapes. It’s been going on for decades. Many old record stores used to sell local disks all of the time.

The fact is that distribution is expensive and so is advertising. I realize it may sound sucky to sign away 85% of the revenues to the people handling distribution, but the royalty structure is something that’s evolved over a long time. Hundreds of thousands of musicians have tried to self-publish their own music and they often can’t afford to invest in distribution or advertising. It’s usually easier to shake a fist at the big corporation than acknowledge that it takes plenty of capital to get out the word about a new band.

The Groove Tigersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Let’s see… these are the choices:

-Sign up with Big Label, get ripped off.

-Go independent, get a bogus DMCA takedown on your stuff, and/or get Universal to claim they own your songs and royalties, and get every single channel that you could use to promote your stuff outlawed by RIAA.

Yeah, there would be choices if YOU DIDN’T ATTEMPT TO DESTROY the other choice constantly.

Oh hey, you don’t have to vote for us, you can either vote for us or get shot. Choices!

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Oh come on. I see tons of small independent bands on MySpace and YouTube and they’re not being shut down by bogus DMCA notices. It’s just not happening with any regularity. So go on being paranoid.

The fact is that people like to share music with their friends and this creates a winner-take-all market as everyone congregates around whatever the mob chooses. It may tough to be a small band that’s ignored by everyone, but it has nothing to do with bogus DMCA notices.

Josh in CharlotteNCsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

I see tons of small independent bands on MySpace and YouTube and they’re not being shut down by bogus DMCA notices.

So what happens when Youtube is held liable for everything their users upload? They’ll stop letting their users upload anything, unless it’s been approved by the major studios.

But this isn’t just about Youtube. It’s also about the next competitor to Youtube. What about the 3 guys in a garage building the next big thing? Are they gonna get venture capital once a law passes to make them liable for uploads?

And seriously, people still use MySpace?

Killercoolsays:

Re: "Big Search and Big Hardware"

You keep saying these words…

I do not think they mean what you think they mean…

Please explain how these monsters of industry are so powerful if not from a majority of the population purchasing and/or using their services and goods? Especially since they are the ones being targeted by the so-called “victims of piracy,” who, as of yet, are the only ones who have successfully swayed Congress to create bills in their favor (when it comes to IP, anyways). They have pretty much only been thrown the bone that is the (unfortunately, most sensible bill since it was drafted) DMCA.

Which has the oh-so-terrible habit of not blaming the service provider for what it’s customers do.

Awful, I know. Of course retailers and business-folks should be persecuted for what people do with their product.

Instead of just the folk who are actually doing the unlawful activity.

Hey, a guy last week rode a cab to the bank he robbed! Let’s sue the cab company! They’re enablers!

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

I think the point being is that the Internet has destroyed the concept of copyright as it used to exist. Hell, copyright destroyed copyright as it was originally intended, but I digress. The point being that copyright is dead. The entire concept of copyright is now a square peg in a round hole. The Internet has killed it. Rather than accepting the fact that copyright is in now a square peg in a round hole, you are trying to cut the round holes into squares using shaky hands rather than sanding down your square to fit in the round holes.. Whether you believe it or not, copyright is already in its death throes. We have an entire generation up and coming that will tear down copyright as if it’s the next Berlin Wall. Passing such draconian legislature will only hasten the uprising. You and your copyright buddies are on the wrong side of history.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re: "Big Search and Big Hardware"

Are you aware that cab drivers keep a log file of their fares just to help the police solve crimes? Pawn shops photograph the people selling things. Drug stores ask for the drivers licenses of people buying pseudofed. The same is true of many businesses that get caught up with sketchy customers.

There are so many things that Big Search and Big Hardware could do to help the artists. They might insist that people use real accounts traceable to people before uploading. They might ask uploaders to fill out a form instead of insisting that creators jump through annoying DMCA hoops to get something taken down.

But no. Everything is meant to smooth the way of the pirate and every roadblock is arranged to annoy the person who actually did the work.

Atkraysays:

Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

“But I submit that most Americans would rather have a strong copyright rule than unfettered access to all of the free content that Big Search and Big Hardware can serve up. Why? Because most Americans aren’t lazy couch potatoes. They have jobs and they know that the creators are working hard. Just as they want to be paid, they know that the creators need to pay for health insurance, a roof and some food too. “

bob,

I disagree with you, I think most Americans are happy to drop some change or maybe even a bill into an artist’s hat or guitar case…until the economy tanks or they have to pay for their children to have braces. Then they walk by an think to themselves, “why doesn’t this guy get a job?”

Your mistake is believing that because your art is the most valuable thing in the world to you, others MUST place equal value on it. We do not.

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup, there's no way that Big Hardware and Big Search are out of touch

Not at all. DRM is a tricky problem and it hasn’t been solved. Search, however, has been well-understood since before Alta Vista. The game is just engineering now. That’s why I laugh when I hear about Big Search actually innovating. That’s bogusity.

If anything search is regressing as they remove what used to be innovation. But Mike doesn’t like to talk about that.

http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Google-Optimization-Help/Google-Drops-Plus-Sign-from-Search-Operators/

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/13/1025991/-Yahoo!-leaves-US-Chamber”

Here you go, sparky….
Thanks for making my point numb nuts. Here is the sum total of Yahoo’s comments on leaving the US CoC:

For Yahoo?s part, a spokeswoman would only say to MT that the company ?has memberships with numerous trade associations and belongs to a number of organizations that promote a free and fair marketplace which enable Yahoo! to innovate on behalf of our more than 700 million users. As our membership renewal time neared and we reviewed our membership, we decided not to renew.”

Maybe you can explain how this supports Masnick’s FUD-based assertions like:

Yahoo recently refused to renew its membership out of disgust over the Chamber’s position on PROTECT IP/SOPA. or this October 13 headline: Yahoo Dumps US Chamber Of Commerce Over Its Extremist Position On PROTECT IP

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

Numb nuts. I like that one.

But did you bother reading at the rest of the link? Everyone is pointing to odds over the legislation as the key reason Yahoo is leaving. Are you actually expecting a comment saying so to get through Yahoo’s PR machine? Is that all that would satisfy you? A direct quote from Yahoo saying this is exactly why they’re leaving?

I mean, just let me know if that’s the case, because we can stop discussing this now. Such a requirement would NEVER be satisfied, true or not….

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Numb nuts. I like that one.

You’re welcome. I try to be charitable.

But did you bother reading at the rest of the link? Everyone is pointing to odds over the legislation as the key reason Yahoo is leaving. Are you actually expecting a comment saying so to get through Yahoo’s PR machine? Is that all that would satisfy you? A direct quote from Yahoo saying this is exactly why they’re leaving?

I’m just saying “who knows”? Maybe Yahoo asked the Chamber to seek certain language or modifications to the bill which were spurned. There’s a lot of stakeholders currently (credit cards and ISP’s mostly) stating that they will object unless other stakeholders are also held to a higher level of accountability. Perhaps Yahoo wouldn’t have left if the payment processor role was enhanced. Nobody knows for sure, certainly not Masnick. But that doesn’t stop him from making broad, sweeping pronouncements that are utterly unsupported by fact.

I mean, just let me know if that’s the case, because we can stop discussing this now. Such a requirement would NEVER be satisfied, true or not….

The FACT is that Yahoo did make a statement. The FACT is that statement said nothing about “disgust” or the “extremist” position of the CoC. Hell, Yahoo never even referenced the bill. Yet Masnick’s propaganda machine twists the Yahoo statement into something totally unrecognizable from what was actually said.

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased)says:

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

Oh, it is in there. If you could detect subtlety then you would catch it.

First sentence: belongs to a number of organizations that promote a free and fair marketplace [emphasis added]

Second sentence: we reviewed our membership, we decided not to renew.

Ergo, the services of the US CoC do not promote a free and fair marketplace so we dumped ’em!

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, it is in there. If you could detect subtlety then you would catch it.

First sentence: belongs to a number of organizations that promote a free and fair marketplace [emphasis added]

Second sentence: we reviewed our membership, we decided not to renew.

Ergo, the services of the US CoC do not promote a free and fair marketplace so we dumped ’em!

Even if accurate, where does “disgust” and “extremist” come into play? People enter and leave voluntary associations all the time depending on the alignment of their views and the views of the organization.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow