Copying Is Not Theft, But Censorship Is

from the Crazy dept

This morning a friend shared with me some amusing American Sign Language videos, and in return I wanted to share with him my favorite ASL video of all time: B. Storm’s interpretation of the Gnarls Barkley song Crazy. Only I couldn’t because it was gone. Why? Because “This video contains content from WMG (Warner Music Group), who has blocked it on copyright grounds.” This is appalling for many reasons, not least of which being the video is almost certainly fair use.


WMG youtube block message

Copying is not theft, but censorship is. When a video is blocked, banned, erased, or otherwise censored, we don’t have it any more. The commons is robbed. When B. Storm copied the song Crazy into his video, WMG’s copies were still there. When WMG censored B. Storm’s video, it was gone.

I couldn’t accept that such a great video was simply gone, so I attempted to recreate and re-share the original video. I found a silent version and combined it with the song, which I captured from the official video using Audio Hijack Pro (having written that, I expect storm troopers to bust down my door any minute now). Unfortunately its sync was a little off; soundtracks end up slightly different lengths and speeds due to all the different kinds of compression out there, and the song I captured was slightly longer than what B. Storm had on his original video. Fortunately another web search, using different terms, led me to this website of videos curated for deaf kids, which miraculously contained the unmolested video embedded from weebly. This I was able to download, and then re-upload to Vimeo where it’s easier to share and embed. Of course it could be taken down at any time, so get it while you can:


Great art like this matters too much to passively let monopolists erase it from our common culture. When you find good videos online, consider making local back-up copies. We never know what’s going to be censored when, and without audience back-ups some great art could be lost forever.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: warner music

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 “Copying Is Not Theft, But Censorship Is”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
211 Comments
Anonymoussays:

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

Why not? Because it makes one look (rightfully so) childish and unconcernd with right/wrong, truth/fiction, but merely concerned with revenge and personal animus.

“Bush was worse” is not a defense of any particular action undertaken by Obama.

“Jimmy did it first” is not a defense of any particular action by Jimmy’s 7 year old brother.

Sometimes, people give a shit about principle, rather than just being no worse than some other asshole they are arguing with.

Anonymoussays:

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

This is based on the assumption that the world gives a shit about being “better” when “no worse than” is enough. Honestly, at times like this, it’s strategic. When the opponent is bribing politicians left and right and launching litigation at the speed of jackrabbits fucking, trying to be better is going to get you owned.

Anonymoussays:

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

Think for a second. I know, it’s hard, but try:

“DRM works! More enforcement works! Copyright works!”

All of that is those who made something choosing to protect it. That is their right. They made it, they should choose what to do with it.

What is Nina after? More fair use, less copyright, etc… basically, she wants to tell those who create things what to do with them. She doesn’t like the way the world works, and feels she should be able to tell other creators to do it her way.

If you don’t like the terms that something is sold under, don’t buy it. But stop telling them what to do with their works.

Anonymoussays:

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

You mean the interested parties who make money off of other people creating things trying to protect their monopoly? Quit trying to pretend this is about artists getting paid, this is about the people who used to control the distribution channels not wanting to give up that control.

You can find countless examples of studios, middlemen, **AAs screwing over artists for decades. But to artists it was join their flock and follow their rules or no one will ever hear your name. So they went with it because that was the only ticket they could ride. Those days are ending and those same middlemen are fighting for control. Notice its not Gnarls getting the music pulled down, which would be ironic since half of Gnarls is Danger Mouse who the studios attempted to sue out of existence when he made the grey album until of course he signed with a studio and can now mix anything he wants because the STUDIOS OWN EVERYTHING. They don’t own it because they deserve it or because they cherish it or they want to do good things with it. They own it because they bought it when they were the only people who could distribute it and now they own it forever.

Anonymoussays:

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

All of that is those who made something choosing to protect it. That is their right. They made it, they should choose what to do with it.

In a world that is increasingly becoming more connected; in a world where copying is becoming easier and easier, not harder; in a world where hundreds of millions of people choose to infringe copyrights every single day?

Yeah, seriously, good luck with all that.

Anonymoussays:

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

basically, she wants to tell those who create things what to do with them.

Wrong. Copyright holders want to tell the public what to do with their works. Copyright is about limiting options for the vast majority of people. Nina wants to open it up. That you erroneously flipped things around is your own problem.

Copyright holders v. creators

There’s a very important point being left out of this debate and that is that content creators and copyright holders are very often not the same people. Rights to our work is very often surrendered or at least shared simply by releasing it or posting it in certain forums. When you write a letter to the editor, sell your work to a magazine, sign a recording contract, do a scene in a film, create something at work, even turn in a paper at school, all of that is governed by agreements you’ve signed at some point. That’s why it’s better to talk about holders of intellectual property (IP) rights, since copyright is only one kind of IP.

It’s important because I’d be willing to bet that Gnarls Barkley knows nothing about the order to pull down this video. It’s almost certainly part of a blanket order from the record company. These policies are not about protecting artists, especially not new artists who would much rather have exposure than a few cents royalties. They are about protecting profits. And they are fundamentally misguided because there is no reason to believe there is a one to one relationship between illegal content and lost sales. Some content is obtained illegally because it’s not available any other way. Some is obtained that way because it is available. In that same way that I’ll watch a movie streaming on Netflix for free that I wouldn’t buy, see in the theater or even pay for, sometimes people will download and watch an illegal movie for free simply because they are bored and it is there. Sometimes the illegal content is obtains because we don’t know if we want to purchase the content. Watching illegal content can lead to the purchase of additional content legally that would not have been sold, otherwise. That I can attest to from experience. I’ve actually been given links to “illegal” downloads by artists expressly for this purpose.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Copyright holders v. creators

“t’s important because I’d be willing to bet that Gnarls Barkley knows nothing about the order to pull down this video. “

I am certain that Gnarles Barkley knows that they have sold or assigned the rights to the music by contract to the record label, and that the label can (as owners) take what action they deem fit. Artists cannot have it both ways – once you have signed the contract and taken the benefits, you have to accept the costs involved as well.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Copyright holders v. creators

They, gnarles is two people, did what they did so they would be allowed to make music. Ever hear of the Grey Album? That was one of them. He was sued to kingdom come and eventually signed with sony. Once he was in the stable the other side backed off and Sony’s lawyers get him whatever licenses he wants because they and their buddies own everything. He would have happily made music without that but its not an option without a public domain.

Just because the old guard has entrenched themselves so well doesn’t make it right. Music shouldn’t be a patronage system. You can’t fault artists who have the option of being raped by lawyers or signing a deal with the devil.

Anonymoussays:

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

We should give that right to all manufacturers and service providers then, how would you feel having to pay Google for the use of their services 3 times.

You pay when you use the service, you pay when you make money with that service and you pay another fee just to be sure you are compensating Google.

Also you should pay Google for having to remove and watch all that trash of yours that get posted there you know it is not free to keep removing that crap.

doughlesssays:

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

See, this is where our disconnect with you is, and why it is so difficult to debate this. Without some miracle, it would be near impossible to convince you that creators have absolutely no moral or ethical right to control what they create. And because we can’t agree on that, by definition, we have trouble agreeing on the purpose of copyright in the first place.

If a creator makes something? Congratulations, the public doesn’t owe them anything. If they doesn’t like the terms something is being bought under, don’t sell it. But stop telling us what to do with what has been shared with us. However, we do want creators to share what they’ve created, and that is the entire purpose the US Constitution (and those of us that agree with that line of reasoning) allows intellectual property laws like copyright. We allow a limited incentive to “promote the progress of useful arts and sciences.”

This point has been made to you over and over again, but we can’t seem to get through to you that promoting progress is much more important (and that’s an understatement) than a creator being allowed to control their works merely because “they made it.”

Anonymoussays:

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

“If a creator makes something? Congratulations, the public doesn’t owe them anything.”

Nor does anyone want anything for the mere act of creation. Creation in and of itself guarantees NOTHING. There is no prize for writing a song.

However, if you want to use the song I wrote, you should seek my permission and gain that right. It’s my song, I wrote it, why should you benefit from my work?

“This point has been made to you over and over again, but we can’t seem to get through to you that promoting progress is much more important (and that’s an understatement) than a creator being allowed to control their works merely because “they made it.””

You almost had it, and then you lost it. Part of the process of “promoting progress” is making progress a viable concept. Progress is achieved when artists are able to dedicate their time to art, and not to working a different job just to make ends meet. We are better off as a society when a great writer has time to write, rather than working as a security guard at an office building. We are better off when a great musician can write new songs or perform for people than it would be if they were stuck selling insurance. Progress is made when the best and the brightest can make a living doing what they do best, and not having to do something else to get by.

Giving artists control over their works and performances is the way our world has resolved to allow this to happen. We allow for the flow of money from millions of individual benefactors towards the songs, writings, performances, and other works that we feel are most valuable to us. We have even created structures that allow for non-performance artists (such as song writers) to make a living doing what they do best, even if it is not directly marketable in a manner that allows them to deal with the benefactors.

In the promoting of progress, we have allowed and encouraged each and every one of us to be patrons of the arts, to “keep” artists in the manner that the rich and the noble did hundreds of years ago, and allowed for and endless array of different types of art to flourish and progress.

If we had only one type of music, and if we had only one type of book, and if we have only one type of art, your arguments might hold water. That the 20th century brought the largest expansion of the arts, and that in the 21st century they continue to expand shows that the purpose of the constitution is being widely and handsomely met.

To deny this is to deny reality.

Anonymoussays:

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

Quote:

However, if you want to use the song I wrote, you should seek my permission and gain that right. It’s my song, I wrote it, why should you benefit from my work?

Play it somewhere and get people to pay you, not go after others that use that music to also make some money and can either make more or less than you can with it.

I don’t see musical instrument manufacturers being entitle a piece of your earnings because you use their instruments so why is that you are entitled to that?

You are not entitle to a monopoly of life + 95 years nobody is, and that is why I want this IP BS to end so things can go back to normal and people can live in peace again without having to worry about some schmuck that feels entitle to money he didn’t earn directly.

You created fine, it came from somewhere the inspiration I doubt you paid a cent for it, but you want others to pay you?

Keep dreaming.

Quote:

Progress is achieved when artists are able to dedicate their time to art, and not to working a different job just to make ends meet.

Progress is made when somebody discovers or creates something and it is spread and used by a large group of people, that is why copyright was made for to facilitate the spread of knowledge not to give a monopoly to someone, not to guarantee a living so I am pretty sure you are wrong.

Quote:

Giving artists control over their works and performances is the way our world has resolved to allow this to happen. We allow for the flow of money from millions of individual benefactors towards the songs, writings, performances, and other works that we feel are most valuable to us. We have even created structures that allow for non-performance artists (such as song writers) to make a living doing what they do best, even if it is not directly marketable in a manner that allows them to deal with the benefactors.

Your faulty assumption in the beginning made you go on a tangent, you see copyright is to allow the spread of knowledge musicians don’t need copyrights to spread music, they do it voluntarily any musician that wants to be a musician will try to gather people around and perform to them. But lets assume that they needed a monopoly, well the world have changed you can’t stop others from copying anything, further most music today have some sample in it I can’t find one original musician that didn’t copy something from someone or made something that sounded like somebody else there are websites that can do melody search today and they just prove that there is nothing that is new everybody copied everybody so granting exclusionary powers to people seems to be counter productive just because it increases legal costs and legal threats that is no way to incentivate anything.

Quote:

If we had only one type of music, and if we had only one type of book, and if we have only one type of art, your arguments might hold water. That the 20th century brought the largest expansion of the arts, and that in the 21st century they continue to expand shows that the purpose of the constitution is being widely and handsomely met.

To deny this is to deny reality.

The reality is that people copied everything and still are doing it to deny that is to deny reality, the advances made in the 20th century were in spite of granted monopolies there were never enforced like they are being today.

Copyright had its time and place now it is time to let it go and move forward without it, a vestige of mercantilism and anachronism that is bound to end should just go quite into the night.

Anonymoussays:

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

As soon as you use the word monopoly, I know you are delusional. There is no monopoly, only the rights to something you create yourself.

There is no control of music. Others can write their own music, they can perform their own songs, they can do whatever they want. There is no monopoly. Nobody forces you to play the song I wrote.

Until you can get over that very basic problem, the rest will never make any sense to you at all.

Anonymoussays:

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

There is a new way of doing things that doesn’t depends on governments to be, doesn’t depend on others being exclude in fact it requires that others steal your product to be successful, it is called open source have you seen it?

It disproves all the assumptions that one needs a granted monopoly to be able to have a market, there are even multi million dollar companies in the eco-system already maybe you heard of them Arduino, Red Hat and others even Microsoft is releasing open source code.

Now why do why need to grant exclusionary powers to people who will abused it and don’t want to really work hard to earn their living like everybody else inside society.

Restaurants can’t count on a granted monopoly, they have to compete they can’t say to other restaurants they can’t make something now can they and still there are multi billion dollar chains like McDonalds, Fashion is the same thing, real state even banks don’t get a monopoly on their products which are financial products that others can copy freely, explain why or anybody deserves a granted monopoly that is now threatening democracy itself because it is becoming so intrusive?

Between democracy and freedom and IP laws I will go with democracy and freedom and say screw copyright and patents.

Greevarsays:

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

Everything you said is false and I can tell you why. An artist doesn’t need a copying monopoly to create art for a living. That’s just an illusion. There are plenty of ways for an artist to make a living as an artist. For example, access. Selling access to the artist for live chat, live presentations, insider content, etc. are all ways to enable an artist to make a living from art. The art they create forms a connection between the artist and his audience that he can then leverage for other things that make him money.

“However, if you want to use the song I wrote, you should seek my permission and gain that right. It’s my song, I wrote it, why should you benefit from my work?”

Alright, and did you pay all the artists that came before you for using their works to build yours? I doubt it. If you write a song, you’re using everything that lead up to the techniques you use in yours. If it were true that every song was 100% original, that it has nothing that has ever been used before, then there would not be such a thing as a genre. There wouldn’t be any “country” music, “rock”, “r&b”, or “classical” music. Each and every song would be a genre unto itself, but that’s impossible. So when you piss and moan that someone is using “your work”, you’re falsely staking claim to all the works that were integrated into the creation of yours.

All art started out as imitations of nature and that gave birth to all the art that descended from that. The first painting was a visual description of events of that people, which told stories. The first song was inspired by the songs of birds. The first dance was inspired by the mating habits of animals. It’s heretical to claim rights to the wealth of all that art history through the use of, and participation in, that history.

“Giving artists control over their works and performances is the way our world has resolved to allow this to happen.”

This I had to address directly. This is totally false. There was plenty of art and performance being done long before anyone imagined that profit could be made from it, before there was even money. People made art because it advanced their civilization, not because they could make a profit from it. Why should it be any different now? Culture is not a product, it is part of who we are and how we progress as a civilization. To claim ownership over such things is to claim ownership over a piece of every single person on Earth.

There is more progress for the arts when the gates are opened wide and people are given unlimited freedom to take what exists and transform it into new, wonderful interpretations of art. Copyright prevents that from happening. It blocks progress. It block culture. Copyright doesn’t allow me to use Justin Beiber (snicker) songs and transform them into something new and great. The death of copyright would open up a great many new possibilities for art that I can’t even anticipate.

Marcus Carabsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I can see why you’d think that given that, as I pointed out, you apparently don’t know what censorship means.

(Hint: it’s not citizens rejecting other citizens opinions, nor is it privately-operated forums enforcing rules of conduct or, as in this case, simply providing user-moderated filtration tools)

Anonymoussays:

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

sigh

Rikuo said his flagging was designed to “teach [the other poster] what it’s like to be censored for a spurious reason.”

So, Rikuo was referring to his flagging as “censorship.”

I just thought it was funny that he would use censorship (using his terminology) in support of an anti-censorship argument.

Now maybe if you spent more time actually trying to understand what people are saying, and less time trying to score Internet snark points, you wouldn’t come off as such a dick sometimes.

Marcus Carabsays:

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

It never fails: whenever you accuse me of failing to comprehend something, you’re the one getting it wrong.

Rikuo did not “design” his flagging for that reason – he said quite clearly why he flagged you: “Because you just went and insulted someone for no reason. You didn’t try to refute her arguments, you didn’t say you disagree, you just insulted her.”

The last bit, about censorship, was what we earthlings call a joke. It was Rikuo going for a couple “internet snark points”

Anonymoussays:

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

Marcus. Come on, dude.

First, let’s get a few things straight: 1. Rikuo did not flag me. 2. I am not who you think I am.

Honestly, if you’re trying to show how well you comprehend what’s going on, and how poorly I do, you’re not doing a good job.

Now, back to your original criticism of me, please explain how your post hoc explication of Rikuo’s post shows that I have a misunderstanding of what constitutes “censorship”?

I just used it as he did, because I thought his use was funny! How is his use being a “joke” show that I have some misunderstanding?

Don’t let your personal beef with some other Anonymous Coward lead you to buffoonery.

Anonymoussays:

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

The thing you missed is that Rikuo didn’t censor anyone, he doesn’t have that power, his vote in favor of censoring someone is not the power to censor anything and in this case the censoring is called filtering, Rikuo needs others to also flag that post.

So explain how is he censoring anything, he alone doesn’t have the power to do so, for that to happen there needs to be others who also want to censor that one post and reach a specific value, how is that equal to censorship that doesn’t need to build any consensus and rest entirely at the hands of one person or entity?

Further Rikuo alone doesn’t have the power to stop anybody from posting elsewhere, he can’t mandate anybody be tortured, imprisoned, sanctioned or anything so that is not real censorship enforced by a state is it?

Even further lets assume for the sake of argument that what Rikuo did is equal to state enforced censorship in every single aspect and nature, his actions alone just prove strongly why nobody should ever have the power to exclude others from anything or anywhere people will use it without thinking about the consequences, people will abuse it because they can’t control their emotions, that right there is the most compelling reason why no one should ever be granted exclusionary powers for anything, that means copyright must end because it can end only in abuse. You can see it happening in both sides and that is exactly why we should not grant any kind of power for that ever.

Anonymoussays:

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

Please, re-read what I’ve posted thus far, as it gets tiresome saying the same thing over and over again.

I was only using Rikuo’s own definition of “censorship.” Nowhere have I suggested that I think that is a good, bad, accurate, or inaccurate definition of “censorship.”

If you have a problem with that definition, that is a problem with Rikuo’s definition.

Is this really so hard to comprehend?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’d say ‘spurious reason’ and ‘no good reason’ are not functionally equivalent to ‘Because you just went and insulted someone for no reason. You didn’t try to refute her arguments, you didn’t say you disagree, you just insulted her.’ Rikuo didn’t describe Rikuo’s own reasoning as spurious after all.

You disagree?

Shiggsays:

If an argument could be made that take-downs for content that do not belong to the company that issues it is theft, could this be used as a tool against such take downs? Charge or sue that company for theft of property (they are “taking” the property away from “us”) by the real rights holder/creator? This would, presumably, give a push back against the ‘censor now, ask later’ approach we are seeing now.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Takedown requests should have a method of redress.

As long as you can tell the difference between a business model based on user submissions in general and a business model based on infringing we’d be good to go. Unfortunately you can’t seem to. No, in your silly world view they’re the same thing. Which makes sense because if user can create and share their own content that would compete with traditional sources of content now wouldn’t it?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Takedown requests should have a method of redress.

won’t work big companies will spend you into the ground, appealing every loss until you can’t survive to keep fighting.

The only fair situation would be a revocation of the copyright holders copyright. If they abuse it they should lose it.

They can appeal, but during the interim they suffer the penalty, just like the people who have their stuff wrongfully taken down.

DannyBsays:

Re: Re: Takedown requests should have a method of redress.

The only fair situation would be a revocation
of the copyright holders copyright

Problem is that false DMCA takedowns are often on something that they don’t own the copyright to in the first place. So you can’t take away their copyright because they never owned it.

bobsays:

If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

It’s that simple. If the pirates deny the artists money, the artists have to get day jobs and cut back their production or even stop altogether.

And this will really chafe the knickers of some of the piracy lovers around here: denying the money to the Big Content companies effectively censors future artists. Why? Big Content invests in the next generation of artists, at least in most cases. They invest with the profits that everyone around here hates and in this case “invest” means fund the creation of more works by up and coming artists.

But I don’t expect any of the pirate-smooching couch potatoes around here to ever grasp this argument. To them, the Kim Dotcom’s MegaUpload is the highest form of art ever made. To deny him the ability to express his art form (pointers to other’s work) was the greatest event of censorship ever. Yup. Kim Dotcom was greater than Michelangelo, Shakespeare and Stephen King combined. Why every minute of the day, his magnificent creation was creating more art when it spun out pointers. Yup. And who cares if some dumb singer has to get a day job as long as Kim Dotcom is returned to his rightful spot on the pinnacle of the artistic world. All Hail Kim Dotcom, King of all Art.

E. Zachary Knightsays:

Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

Ok….Let me get this straight. You think the only way artists can make money is by going through a gatekeeper? You think they are the only ones willing to invest in new talent. Forget all the bandcamp and kickstarter artists. Forget all the Louis Ck’s and Humble Bundles. If it didn’t go through a legacy gatekeeper, they don’t matter.

No one is saying that gatekeepers can’t make money or that they are evil for wanting to make money. We are saying that their ability to make money will diminish if they continue to ignore and/or fight the whims of their customer base. The fact remains that it is getting increasingly easier to make a living as an artists by bypassing the gatekeepers. That is a fact that the gatekeepers have to deal with.

Skeptical Cynicsays:

Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

But pirates don’t. Most people pay and that is why they still make money. That is why the entertainment industry is making more money than they did last year. They don’t deny artists money. We want our content without DRM, we want to watch and read what we want and only have to pay once. We just want the content industries to hear us and give us a product that we to want buy. Most people will pay for the content. But most people don’t want to pay for something and then pay again and again and again and again for the same content. That is what they want.

If you think that is good then just find a cave to f__k yourself in and enjoy.

blertsays:

Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

“Kim Dotcom was greater than Michelangelo, Shakespeare and Stephen King combined.”

Because it was copyright laws that allowed Michelangelo and Shakespeare to create their great works as full time artists. They would never have been able to do so without them…. oh wait… em.

Anonymoussays:

Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

See, the problem with that line of reasoning is that the industry has been booming thanks to the internet, piracy notwithstanding. Meanwhile, take-downs negatively affect the new distributors and derivative art work (which, arguably, encompasses all of art to some degree).

Trailssays:

If making unsupported statements = stupidity then your comment is stupid

It’s that simple. If you make arguments unsupported by data, then you look like a jackass.

And this will really chaffe the knickers of some copyright maximalists around here: denying spurious and circular logic of the Big Content companies effectively encumbers their ability to pass shite laws. Why? Big Content invests in circulating studies with bad or unpublished methodology, no methodology, and gross statistical errors, at least in most cases. They invest with profits that they get in spite of claims that their business is contracting and in this case “invest” means fund the creation of non sense self-serving “studies” when they should be focused or fixing their business models.

But I don’t expect any of the souless sycophant grafters like you to ever grasp this argument. To you, Chris Dodd’s ?The entire film industry of Spain, Egypt and Sweden are gone.? comment is the highest form of factual, logical assertion ever achieved. To deny shills the ability to spread misinformation (idiotic statements proven patently false and yet constantly repeated) was the greatest attack on the on freedom (to corrupt legislation to prop up an obsolete business model) ever made. Yup. Chris Dodd’s argument was better than those of Lawrence Lessig, Trent Reznor and Vint Cerf combined. Why every minute of the day, his magnificent corruption of the legislative process was attempting to lock down one of the only growth sectors keeping the american economy afloat. Yup. And who cares if some dumb people lose their life savings due to DNS hijacks made possible through the legislation, as long as Chris Dodd is returned to his rightful spot whispering into the ears of bought and paid for congress members. All Hail Chris Dodd, King of All Graft.

Anonymoussays:

Re: If making unsupported statements = stupidity then your comment is stupid

My God Trails! Now THAT’S talent!

I have a theory where this sort of crappy comes from…

You see when most of us were kids, our parents taught us to respect others and share because it was the right thing to do. They can’t differentiate between theft and sharing because no one ever taught them what sharing actually was much less why it was important. Their parents allowed them to get away with screaming “MINE! MINE! MINE!” instead of correcting their selfish behavior effectively turning them into the greedy soulless bastards that we have to deal with today.

hegemon13says:

Re: Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

Funny you should mention Stephen King, who would be the last to go after fan videos like this. He is, after all, the guy who gave blanket license for independent filmmakers to create “dollar babies” for festival, contest, educational, or other non-commercial use. That is, you can buy non-commercial film rights to any of his works…for a dollar.

Tail Warpsays:

Re: Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

True. Stephen Kings reliance on Big Content contracts forced some real crap out of him that almost drowns the good works. And that was before their control became strict.

Shakespeare born into a copyright culture matching todays would be unable to publish and market his work. All his tales were creative derivatives from older stories elsewhere in the world.

Michelangelo born into a copyright culture matching todays would still be locked into his life-long contract making pottery statues for the Big Content church that signed and trained him as a youth.

Kim Dotcom… well you know how that goes.

Franklin G Ryzzosays:

Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

Hey there, bobbyboy. In your little rant there, you actually made a really good point that seems worth repeating…

“denying the money to the Big Content companies effectively censors future artists”

This is extremely poorly worded and very misleading by using the word censor since it’s clearly not censorship, but it does raise an interesting point. Essentially in order for an artist to receive my money, they need to not be signed up with a Big Media label. Not one dime of my money will ever go to the Big Content industry ever again. That means no analog dollars or digital dimes for Big Music, Big Movies, Big Gaming, Big Publishing, and preferably even Big Retail but that one is tough. What’s funny about all that is I have more money than ever to spend on frivolous things, but only indies will see that money.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

“Essentially in order for an artist to receive my money, they need to not be signed up with a Big Media label.”

Yep, me too. Plus, I spend more on the non-big-label artists nowadays than I ever spent back before the labels declared war on us all.

And before Bob et al accuses me of piracy, I don’t. There’s so much great music available from other, legal, sources that I have absolutely no need to support the criminal enterprises that comprise the RIAA member labels.

Anonymoussays:

Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

“invest” in new artists == by more indentured servants

From reading some of your previous posts this sounds suspiciously like the same “Bob” Lewis Black spoke about in his hurricane routine in 2000. I come to the same conclusion he did.

Anonymoussays:

Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

Kim Dotcom is an inspiration to any artist out there, he is living proof that one can make money without any protections whatsoever and not just pocket change, that is the greatest contribution he gave humanity he proved without a doubt that you can compete with anything if you really try hard.

Even though he has a colorful past.
The one thing he did it was to show that pirates can deny money to anyone, it is a market, you should do your thing and let people pay you for it not force others and annoy them with demands, if they want to hear the same music from other sources that is not up to any artist to control ever, this is denying money to everybody else, this is denying work to everybody else just to benefit one person that is not capable of catering to every single person in the world, but greed make some believe they are entitled to manage even what they can’t handle.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

“Kim Dotcom is an inspiration to any artist out there, he is living proof that one can make money without any protections whatsoever and not just pocket change, that is the greatest contribution he gave humanity he proved without a doubt that you can compete with anything if you really try hard.”

Yes, he is the proof that you can take billions of dollars of content and make millions with it.

How fucking stupid are you?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

eejit, you don’t read very well, do you?

Kimdot had little or no costs involved because he wasn’t paying for the content he was selling. He used billions of dollars of content to make millions. Had he been paying for it, that fat fuck would be more broke than broke. He would be broke flatter than piss on a plate.

There is no magic in a business model that involves not paying for raw materials. He has proven only that there isn’t enough money in file sharing to actually pay for the product.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

Is that not what the labels and studios actually do?
They take the billions that others use to make things and make money out of exploiting those billions?

Lets ask the workers how much they value their work and see the value they come up with and see how much labels and studios actually make.

LoL

Anonymoussays:

Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.

I know is hard for you to grasp the concept of limits bob, but a granted monopoly for a common resource that resides in the public domain is real theft, it is robbing not one person, it is robbing the entire human civilization of something.

But you seem to believe that everybody should own what they created forever, here is the thing have you paid royalties to the guy who build your home or made your car yet?

No, you thieving bastard, why not?

:Lobo Santosays:

Re: yeah..

There’s a perspective problem (fallacy) with your line of reasoning.

Let’s say I chose to invest heavily in my very own sole proprietor business; making and selling flax-seed oiled chocolate squid cakes.

Now, my continued business relies entirely on people buying what I’m selling.

Sadly, I’ve chosen to make something nobody will buy at any price.

Don’t you think we should pass some laws so I can get government money and continue to make something nobody wants to buy?

Trailssays:

Re: Re: yeah..

The only tweak I’d make to your analogy is to add that the marginal cost of producing a flax-seed oiled chocolate squid cake is nil.

So the counter argument is “but people are getting it for free because they can”.

The problem with the counter argument is that it assumes some meaningful portion of the people who got it for free would have paid, and that society as a whole benefits from turning a country into a police state so that you can prevent people from getting squid cakes for free, which in and of itself doesn’t even guarantee purchase of the squid cakes.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Also

So nobody would buy it….

But just think of the profit that could be made from the subsidies of the flax-seed and squid industries…

I mean you could ‘burn’ your flax-seed to the ground and still make money off the government subsidies… oh that was Corn and it’s already being done…. I’m so behind the times

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: yeah..

The argument always fails because the stuff that is being pirated is EXACTLY what the public wants – otherwise they wouldn’t be pirating it.

Nina is just once again making excuses for not understanding licensing. She made one big mistake making Sita, and has been butthurt about it every since.

Greevarsays:

Re: Re: Re: yeah..

“The argument always fails because the stuff that is being pirated is EXACTLY what the public wants – otherwise they wouldn’t be pirating it.”

Nobody said they didn’t want it, they said they didn’t want to buy it (i.e. they don’t think it’s worth paying for). But you refuse to catch on to that distinction because it invalidates your whole counterargument.

“Nina is just once again making excuses for not understanding licensing. She made one big mistake making Sita, and has been butthurt about it every since.”

Oh, the poor baby can’t come up with an intelligent comment so, you lash out with a hurtful retort? Would you like your mommy to kiss your powdered butt and tell you how special you are? Grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child.

Sujasays:

Re: Re: Re: yeah..

Nina is just once again making excuses for not understanding licensing.

people who work in the industry often do not understand licensing, consider that and it becomes hard to see how nina is at fault, rather than the licensing system itself

She made one big mistake making Sita

her mistake? or perhaps the mistake of ever creating such a tangled mess like licensing and copyright which do nothing than over-complicate the simple? she made do with what she had at the time and didn’t give in because of a few obstacles

which, then, is the real mistake?

has been butthurt about it every since

let’s not talk about you now

Franklin G Ryzzosays:

Re: Re: yeah..

Flax-seed Oiled Chocolate Squid Cakes?!?!?!

I’ll take 2 dozen!

If you just add “: The Movie” or “: The Album” to the end of that your argument perfectly describes 99% of what Hollywood and the Music industry has put out for the last decade and their logic behind SOPA/PIPA. Analogy win!

/onefreesquidcakeplease?

Machin Shinsays:

Re: yeah..

Well, What I would like to see then is the courts to look at it like theft. If I broke into you house and stole a $30 TV the courts are going to laugh at you for sueing me and at most I might pay you a few hundred dollars. So why are these companies allowed to sue people for thousands in “damages” when what they “stole” is worth much less than $30 in most cases.

I mean I can buy an MP3 for $.99 so how can downloading it for free add up to thousands in “damage”. Even if I downloaded it and shared it with my friends I’m only actually costing the company maybe $40-50 at the high end and that is only if everyone was going to actually buy it.

Greevarsays:

Re: Re: yeah..

Well it’s because your are somehow liable for all of the infringement on the internet, not just your own. They can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt how much you infringed (i.e. how much you shared those files, if at all), so it’s easier to just put you on the hook for all of the infringement and call it a day.

DanZeesays:

Re: Re: yeah..

The government does this all the time. It started with phone hackers who were charged with causing millions of dollars of damage even though all they did was make free phone calls. Then there’s a kid in Britain who broke into NASA’s computers looking for UFO info and he’s been charged with causing millions of dollars of damage. Now downloading a song causes millions of dollars of damage. Same tactic.

The difference is that judges and juries use to believe the government’s claims. Hopefully, people are familiar enough with the Internet to dismiss these kinds of claims — that is if the case actually makes it to trial! (It may take 3-5 years before MegaUpload will have its day in court!)

Anonymoussays:

Re: yeah..

It is easy to say copyright is theft when is not your stuff being taken, you see, knowledge and arts reside in the public domain where access to it is important and it was always free now because some douche wants a monopoly I have to give up my rights because of him?

Really?

I doubt you would like to pay more for your mortgage because you have to pay royalties for the rest of your natural life to the guy who build it, are you going to pay for more for your car, TV, instruments if no why not?

Greevarsays:

Re: yeah..

It’s easy to say because it’s a fact. It’s not relative at all. It’s also not immoral because it was built on all of the art that came before (i.e. the public domain), thus it belongs to everyone. Furthermore, blocking people from sharing art and knowledge is blocking communication, therefore censorship. If you create something with public resources, it belongs to the public. The only thing you’re owed is your labor and time.

Get this through your thick skull: Art is public property. You are only entitled to being paid for the time, labor, and physical resources put into it. If you give away one copy for a fraction of the cost to create it (i.e. $60 for a copy of a video game) then you’ve just surrendered the work for less than what your labor is worth. If you were smart, you would get many people together to pay your entire production fee before releasing it, because once even one copy is in circulation, you’ve relinquished the opportunity to get your labor’s worth from it and must rely on the public’s kindness to respect your wishes. One copy is all it takes to make your labor and time null. So be smart and get paid to make it rather than get paid for the easily copyable result.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: yeah..

Hmmm, let’s see…

I produce “intellectual property” for a living. Much of my work has been pretty heavily pirated over the years. And I don’t think it’s theft.

Immoral? Sure, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it. That’s between the infringer and his/her conscience.

I couldn’t give two hoots about individuals who “steal” my stuff. The reason why is simple: the vast majority of the people who do it would never have purchased it anyway, so they aren’t actually costing me anything. They are giving me something, though: word-of-mouth advertising. I have very strong indications that I have made more money because of piracy than I would have made without it, due to this effect.

What I do care about is commercial infringers: copy shops who are actually using my own work to compete with me. They cost me real money, and it is them that copyright law is really intended to arm me against.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: yeah..

This…….

That’s really all this fight is about. Who cares if someone uses your song to put their vacation videos to music? Why would that be considered anything BUT free advertising?

There needs to be a direct line dividing up ‘personal’ from ‘commercial’.

The clip art industry figured this out a LONNNG TIME ago…they didn’t care if you used their clip art on your website, as long as you weren’t making money off your website, or passing the art off as your own without the proper ‘hat tip’.

Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, Google+, etc etc are no different than friends sharing with friends. If anything, the more open you are, the more people will be interested, and potential for more income for your work….with less effort involved on the artist part.

That dude on the corner with the card table selling your CD ripped from the Internet for his own profit….by all means, go after em hard.

Just leave the Grannies singing ‘Purple Rain’ alone….

jupiterkansassays:

Re: yeah..

The Bible says “Thou shalt not steal” but there’s nothing in there about making copies. In fact, people still make plenty of money selling Bibles as well as songs and movies and stories based on the Bible, even though it’s free online. Hollywood’s probably made more money off the Bible than any other book.

Copying is not theft.

Anonymoussays:

Ok, so their metaphorical use of “theft” isn’t ok, but yours is. Got it. Neither is theft, unless you want to expand “theft” to have a broad definition. If you want to do that, that’s fine, but then don’t get all pissy when people call copyright infringement “theft.”

Also, what makes a video translating a copyright-protected work “almost certainly fair use”?

Anonymoussays:

Re:

Copying = addition.
Theft = subtraction.

Copyright infringement is infringement on someone’s right to copy or not copy something, results in more of something, not less, a greater supply.

Theft is the absence of something after it’s been stolen, there is less of it, a diminished supply.

Censorship is also subtraction, something has been removed or is gone from the supply, so yes, it is theft.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

Um, you just made those definitions up. In no statute book or dictionary are you going to find “subtraction” as a definition of “theft”. I think the whole “definitional” game that is often played to criticize pro-copyright folks (It’s not theft; it’s copyright infringement!) is silly, but if you’re going to play it, don’t change the rules when you don’t like the result.

If you want to call censorship “subtraction”, that’s great, but only if you make up some ad hoc definition for “theft” to fit your argument should you call it theft, while simultaneously criticizing anyone who calls copyright infringement “theft”.

I could just as easily say “an action that, writ large, has a tendency to deprive someone of something” is “theft,” and then say copyright infringement is theft. But making up ad hoc definitions that allow you to use good propaganda language for whatever argument you’re trying to make is stupid.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

Tried to break it down conceptually for you. Still over your head, I see.

Where are the charges of theft listed when someone is sued for copyright infringment?

Why do you have a problem calling infringement what it actually is, under the law? Is it too long a word or something?

You cannot steal a copy of something, only make a copy of it where infringement is concerned. You can steal a copy of a book off a shelf, but that’s actual theft, not infringment on the right to copy.

Greevarsays:

Re: Re: Re:

The legal definition of theft is the unlawful taking of property, which removes it from the owner’s possession or use. In order to be considered theft, something has to be removed and deprive the own of its use or possession. Censoring content removes it from existence, therefore denying its use. That fits the definition of theft.

Censorship is theft.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

First, this assumes that one’s creative work is property. Are you sure you want to base your argument on that premise?

Second, taking a video off of YouTube does not deprive the “owner” (your term) of possession or use.

Let’s just agree for both “sides” (and people in general) to stop calling things “theft” that aren’t theft (or at least agree that “theft” can be a metaphorical term applied to many things that don’t fit any strict definition).

Is that too much to ask?

Greevarsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You don’t get it though, it belongs to everyone. Art is created from use of the public domain, which is public property. That’s a fact. Therefore, it’s everyone’s property. Censoring it removes it from the public’s use, thus theft. The submitter isn’t the owner, the public is. Depriving a single person the use of a work, which is clearly derived from the public domain (the public’s property), is theft.

Anonymoussays:

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

“Art is created from use of the public domain, which is public property. That’s a fact.”

That is not a fact. I don’t think we disagree about the nature of creative works drawing on what came before. But calling something “property,” when your intent is to signify that nobody has any exclusive rights to that something, is an oxymoron.

If you’re going to start with a legal definition of “theft” (which you did, or at least purported to do), you can’t twist, pull, and contort other legal concepts (e.g., property) beyond all recognition to fit your definition. Well, you can, but it’s dumb.

Now, if you want to say censorship is theft in a metaphorical sense, that’s fine. But if your using a metaphor, then I think it’s also fine to talk about “IP theft.”

Anonymoussays:

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

Thanks, it mad my nose bleed a little trying to straighten it out, but it was obviously worth it.

Honestly I would agree with you that all art doesn’t come from the public domain. All art comes from other peoples copyrighted works, but only because they killed the PD a long time ago. Listen to any great artist talk about how they make their work and its always by submerging themselves in other peoples works and retooling it through their own process or viewpoint. Paul Simon was explaining how he works on NPR the other week it was a great example, don’t have time to hunt the link down right now though. Seriously though nothing is original everything is an extension or derivitive.

As far as is infringement in the truest definition no. If it was they wouldn’t have bothered to make a new word for it. Sure you can equate it to theft but you can equate anything to anything if you bullshit long enough. You could call it cyber-theft or digital-theft but then you would just be an asshole. Its infringement, its illegal copying. Its not theft because nothing is taken away, in fact something is created. Is revenue deprived? Sometimes but certainly not always so its no good trying to label it like its always a loss for the IP owner. Sometimes infringement leads to cash more cash for the artists not less.

Lets call a horse a horse so we all stop looking like donkeys.

Anonymoussays:

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

You may try reading it again, he said there:

Quote:

“Art is created from use of the public domain, which is public property. That’s a fact.”

That is not a fact

So I want you to explain why it is not a fact, because I know for a fact that without human interaction people just revert to a primitive state, without the social inputs (aka public domain) people wouldn’t be inspired for anything and you are saying it is not a fact that people create by deriving it from a public source?

That doesn’t sound right does it?

Anonymoussays:

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

Yes it is a fact, where do you think inspiration comes from to create art? the ether perhaps?

Calling something “property” when trying to convey the contrary can be viewed as using the terms used by some group to facilitate the understanding of the concept, the same way you don’t tell a children that a sphere is bouncing up and down, you choose another word and that is ball. But I agree trying to call something that can’t be property of no one only in legal fantasy is an oxymoron but one create by the great jurist minds that thought somehow that would be good for unknown reasons, the real reasons we will never know probably.

The rest I agree it is dumb to contort the law beyond all recognition to fit our own view, that you should apreciate why changing the original meaning of IP to mean people are granted rights to describe a monopoly is so dumb.

Anonymoussays:

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

A “sphere” and a “ball” are synonyms. Property is not a synonym for something that nobody can claim exclusive rights to. Rather, it is an antonym.

I don’t dispute how the creative process works (which I thought I made crystal clear in my last post).

I’m curious as to what you think the “original meaning” of IP is. It (meaning copyrights and patents) has always been a form of limited monopoly.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

The is like agree because Alice is call he computer a “dead computer” because it won’t start, she as not right to criticize Bob for saying that his car is “dead” for the reason that it is out of gas, because both use of “dead” are non-literal, notwithstanding that a computer not starting is effectively same as the computer ‘dying’ and a car being out of gas is nothing like death.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

Monopolist supporter sounds better?
It describes what you support since IP is a granted monopoly that uses exclusion to function, which can end up being used to censor things since it is entirely designed to exclude others from something or somewhere, in that sense one could also call you a pro-censorship, anti-free-speech guy since inevitably those things will be affected by something that can and will be used as such.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

Twitter’s options are comply with the local government and censor the comment or don’t and get kicked out of the country thereby removing the entire countries right to tweet anything. So censor as requested or “censor” all future tweets.

I think the local only censorship is going above and beyond what most companies do to fight censorship. Especially since they are marking tweets are censored for people who can still view them. So something censored in one country is now labeled as something that government censored and the rest of the world can see that.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

You obviously either didn’t read or understand my point.

They comply with government requests, if you want to boycott the Iranian government go ahead. But they comply only as much as they have to in a manner that is actually a big FU to the local government but it is outside of their control and then they broadcast and label that censored content for the rest of the world to view. How hard is it for hundreds of people to retweet it and throw it back into the country it was censored out of?

The alternative is cutting off access for the entire country. IDK what you want them to do? You think denying an entire country twitter is better then complying with censorship demands from the government in the most minimalistic way possible?

Also I am going to just go ahead and let you keep thinking you can’t illegally share movies on twitter because… whatever

btrussellsays:

Re: Re:

“Twitter’s options are comply with the local government and censor the comment or don’t and get kicked out of the country thereby removing the entire countries right to tweet anything.”

What is stopping said government from requesting that it is removed completely? Not flagged and/or posted anywhere else? Or get kicked out of the Country.

btrussellsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Why couldn’t any of the Arab Spring nations really shut them down?”

I don’t know. Why are they doing it to themselves?
I guess they don’t need to censor now either then. Unless it is about money as opposed to providing a service.

“I imagine this placates them enough for the time being.”

One day? One week? It is a slippery slope they should never have put themselves on.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The only way off the slope is to not provide service to these countries.

They are doing what they can by
A) announcing to the world that this is going on
B) only censoring the quotes in the region that demands the censorship
C) displaying a notice that the tweet you are viewing is censored in another country

They can pull out of the country and not let anyone use the service or they can do what the local government says. You can get on your high horse and say “never cave to fascist dictators, they are only staying in the country for money!” all you want. But removing what has proven to be a very powerful tool for oppressed people is not going to help anyone. The government will not be able to monitor all tweets so there is no way they can effectively censor everything they don’t like and its super easy for everyone who isnt censored to retweet the message and get it back up within the censored country.

Really, what would you prefer they do? Narrowly comply or shut off service to everyone?

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Fair use!!!

This is why we need to reform copyright law by opening up fair use for non-commercial derivative works. The use of this music to create an educational video in no practical way inhibits WMG’s ability to profit from it, in fact it may even help their profits. WMG’s takedown of this video is nothing but corporate greed and meanness. No wonder people hate them. This also highlights the drawbacks of automated takedown systems, which undoubtedly are at play here -a human, allowed to act on their conscience might have chosen to leave the video up, but instead we have a machine who’s operating parameters are dictated by lawyers.

The suggestion to copy and further distribute the “offending” work is tantamount to an incitement to illegal acts, but I heartily endorse it -think of it as a form of civil disobedience.

Re:

Thanks for that link. The initial point of this post is a very good one. Who lost out through the making and publication of this video? It is unlikely to hurt sales of the Gnarls Barkley recording. If anything, it’s good publicity for it. It reminded me how much I liked it. I doubt B. Storm is making wads of cash off this video. If he were, perhaps it would be fair to pay royalties, but I suspect that if he had to pay for use of the song, he wouldn’t be able to use it.

So I don’t think that anyone is being hurt financially by this video. But when YouTube takes it offline at the request of the record label, we are being denied access to someone’s creative work. In this case, I see a video that could be a very useful teaching tool. engaging yet pedagogically useful, that someone has invested time, creativity, energy and resources into producing and is now making freely available. But it’s been removed because of an allegation of an arbitrary copyright violation. I believe the use of the song does constitute Fair Use.

Terri Gravessays:

B Storm ASL song interpretations

I do not understand why the crazy video was censored it is an interpretation of Gnarls Barkley song. B Storm was not singing the song he was signing it. Besides it was a beautiful video for deaf and hearing people alike, I think it is sad that we can not view his video yet most of our youth have song, signed and ruined many copy write songs on youtube and those are not censored.

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 Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it