If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign

from the misinformation-works dept

We already walked through the ridiculousness of RIAA boss Cary Sherman claiming that the reason SOPA/PIPA were defeated was because of a “misinformation” campaign on the part of some tech companies. Tons of folks who have followed the RIAA for years probably broke out in open laughter when we saw this statement from Sherman:


Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works.

Because, if anyone knows that “misinformation works,” it’s Cary Sherman, who is famous for his ability to run vast misinformation campaigns to get bills passed. Thankfully, Ernest Falcon, over at Public Knowledge decided that if Sherman wanted to open the door to discussing “misinformation campaigns” concerning SOPA/PIPA, we might as well focus on the biggest one of all: the claims by the MPAA and RIAA that DNS blocking was no big deal:


During
the legislative hearing on SOPA, House Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman on
Cybersecurity Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) questioned MPAA Exec. Vice President
Michael O’Leary about the cybersecurity problem.  In response he received the standard
misinformation campaign line of there was no cybersecurity problem and that
this type of activity “occurred all the time.”  To bolster their
misinformation campaign, the content lobby worked hard to manufacture
the “truth”
by highlighting the work of the very small number
of individuals (a grand total of three) who wrote “technical rebuttals.”  These were not so much rebuttals as they were
well
orchestrated advocacy pieces
that ignored the engineering and distorted
the studies
they utilized in order to dupe Members of Congress to
believe the legitimate concerns were in fact unsupported.

Part
of the RIAA and MPAA misinformation campaign centered on the argument that DNS
filtering and secure networks (DNSSEC) could both exist in the same
network.  This was despite the fact that top experts in the field provided an extensive
explanation why that would not be technologically possible (a couple of these
individuals actually saved the Internet in the past). 
In the end, when Comcast (a SOPA supporter) announced they had to shut
down anything that filters DNS traffic when they activated DNSSEC and the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator stated that the bills “pose a
real risk to cybersecurity,” the jig was up.

Lastly,
claiming that censorship concerns in regards to DNS filtering were misplaced
completely ignores the fact that SOPA and PIPA moved America closer to censorship
oriented regimes.  If these bills were enacted into law, American
broadband providers would have been required to install the same filtering
technology used in China, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Armenia, Ethiopia, Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Burma (Myanmar), Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and
Vietnam.  This reality triggered the outpouring of opposition from the international human rights community who fight censorship overseas
every day and point to the United States as the model.  Summing up the
well informed reasoning behind their opposition, Julian
Sanchez with the Cato Institute
points out that enacting SOPA
and PIPA would mean the “only difference between the Unites States and China is what’s on the blacklist.” 

Part of the RIAA’s favorite tactics is to pull out all the dirty tricks in the book… and any time people call them on it, to accuse the other side of using the dirty tricks that were really being used by the RIAA. It’s a classic DC-insider move, but in this day and age, where the internet can route around lies, it’s going to backfire, as it did here. All you have to do is look at the comments on the original Sherman NY Times piece, where upwards of 90% of the comments call Sherman out for his ridiculous claims. Sherman has the old playbook, the one where those who knew the truth couldn’t speak back. If he had paid attention at all to what happened in the SOPA/PIPA debate he would have know that playbook doesn’t work any more. But, it’s all he knows. If the major labels were smart (don’t laugh), they’d dump Sherman and put someone in place who actually gets the internet.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: riaa

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 “If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
115 Comments
Anonymoussays:

“Lastly, claiming that censorship concerns in regards to DNS filtering were misplaced completely ignores the fact that SOPA and PIPA moved America closer to censorship oriented regimes. “

It is the same logic that suggests that restricted speed limits on highways bring us closer to a police state.

It’s a gross overstatement by those who with to create the good old FUD.

Gothenemsays:

Re:

Actually, It is not an overstatement. In order to do what was required by the SOPA or PIPA DNS Blocking, they would have to put into place a filtering system identical to those in countries with oppressive regimes. The reason for this is because there isn’t any other way to do it.

The only difference is what would be filtered by the system. Once the system is in place, all you have to do is create the blacklist.

Creating a sensoring system is moving closer to a censorship oriented regime. That’s not overstatement, it’s fact.

You don’t want to move closer to being a censorship oriented regime. Don’t create a censoring system. It’s that simple.

As for speed limits on the highways bringing us closer to a police state, you are missing a key point here: Speeding is not a felony. It is a misdemeanor.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

Here’s your problem:

The existence of a tool that COULD be used for censorship isn’t enough of a reason to say it is bad. A pair of scissors, used in the right way, could easily censor your internet access. Should we ban cutting tools?

The idea isn’t to create a sensoring system, it’s to create a system that maintains the rule of US law for everyone who wants to do business here. A website offshore selling to Americans (or pushing downloadable materials) should be subject to the same laws and same restrictions that exist for US businesses. You should not be able to just move offshore and keep breaking US laws while doing business here.

I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition.

Machin Shinsays:

Re: Re: Re:

“A website offshore selling to Americans (or pushing downloadable materials) should be subject to the same laws and same restrictions that exist for US businesses.”

You do realize how stupid this sounds right? There are TONS of businesses that are not online that do not follow US laws. Why do you think almost all manufacturing is done overseas? You really think companies like shipping things halfway around the globe for the hell of it? NO they do it because the laws there are not as strict.

These laws would not have stopped all these terrible things you are crying about. They would have been abused and greatly hurt the stability of the internet.

Modplansays:

Re: Re: Re:

The idea isn’t to create a sensoring system, it’s to create a system that maintains the rule of US law for everyone who wants to do business here

Except by definition of what it is claimed SOPA/PIPA is needed for, it would affect you likely regardless of whether you wanted to do business in the US. You would be affected merely by proxy of being on an open web where citizens from other countries can use or view your site.

You are flying in the face of a technology where the origin doesn’t matter because the reach is inherently global.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

“The existence of a tool that COULD be used for censorship isn’t enough of a reason to say it is bad. “

glad you say this because there are other TOOLS like bit torrent, cyber lokers and streaming that are faced with extintion based on the wiches of a few but you seem to forget those and only remmeber the ones that benefit the riaa/mpaa

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

Couldn’t this same argument be applied to the internet and internet services? Let’s also update the second part of your statement for the globally-connected internet. FTFY Version:

Here’s your problem:

The existence of a tool that COULD be used for copyright infringement isn’t enough of a reason to say it is bad. A file locker, used in the right way, could easily distribute copyrighted material. Should we ban file lockers?

The idea isn’t to create a copyright infringement system, it’s to create a system that maintains lines of communication for everyone who wants to do business anywhere on the planet. A website somewhere selling to anyone (or pushing downloadable materials) should be subject to the same laws and same restrictions that exist for every business in the world, all at once. You should not be able to just change locations and keep breaking some law somewhere while doing business globally.

I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

“A website offshore selling to Americans (or pushing downloadable materials) should be subject to the same laws and same restrictions that exist for US businesses. You should not be able to just move offshore and keep breaking US laws while doing business here.”

Wrong, sir. Wrong.

Site housed outside the US are subject to their own jurisdiction. It’s the people inside the US who are liable for their actions. I don’t see many individuals being taken to court over these things.

Why do you AC’s not recognize individual accountability?

JMTsays:

Re: Re: Re:

“The existence of a tool that COULD be used for censorship isn’t enough of a reason to say it is bad. A pair of scissors, used in the right way, could easily censor your internet access. Should we ban cutting tools?”

The USG has had the use of cutting tools at it’s disposal for a very long time, somewhat longer than the internet’s been around. During the internet’s time, has the USG shown a propensity to cutting people’s phone lines with a pair of scissors to censor them? No, I don’t know of any cases of this happening. So can they be trusted with cutting tools? Yes, they can.

The USG has also had the ability to create new laws at it’s disposal for a very long time, again somewhat longer than the internet’s been around. During the internet’s time, has the USG shown a propensity to write laws ostensibly to target certain bad activities, then grossly and cynically stretched those laws to cover things never intended, with terrible unintended consequences? Yes, they certainly have, many times. So can they be trusted with new internet crime-fighting laws that inherently allow censorship? Hell no!

In other words, typical AC analogy fail.

“I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition.”

Are you familiar with the concept that laws reflect the attitudes of the vast majority of the population? Have their been any mass protests about libel, consumer liability or product protection laws lately?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

The existence of a tool that COULD be used for censorship isn’t enough of a reason to say it is bad. A pair of scissors, used in the right way, could easily censor your internet access. Should we ban cutting tools?”

It is a reason. Give someone cutting tools, and their first instinct is to cut.

I guess our libel laws, our consumer liability laws, our product protection laws, and all of that are moves towards censorship, at least by your definition.

Libel, I can see how that might be a “move towards censorship” in the sense that it punishes speech. The others, not so much.

Jaysays:

Re:

It is the same logic that suggests that restricted speed limits on highways bring us closer to a police state.

It’s a gross overstatement by those who with to create the good old FUD.

And where does the idea come from that reduced speed limits actually make traveling safer?

There are a lot of factors that go into safety. Sometimes just having a higher speed limit can produce the desired effect:

“This can be done in many ways, it’s not just about changing the sign. For example, if it is a very long road where speed should be reduced, a roundabout can be added, to give drivers an alert.”

What the reduced speed limit seems intent on is bringing revenue to the police department. Else we wouldn’t have a number of stories from places like Ohio and Oklahoma that use very shady tactics to increase the number of tickets being issued (Red light cameras, a lot of police officers for traffic violations, etc).

Almost Anonymoussays:

Re:

“””It is the same logic that suggests that restricted speed limits on highways bring us closer to a police state.”””

And? This statement is completely factual.

Furthermore, seat belt laws do the same thing.

Control freaks want control. If it can be disguised as “for the public good” or “for the children”, so much the better.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

It is the same logic that suggests that restricted speed limits on highways bring us closer to a police state.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-safe-break-the-law.html

The speed limit on Route 3 is 55. The speed limit used to be 60?.It was reduced by executive order in 1973 to comply with the national speed limit. When the national speed limit was repealed in 1995 the highway commissioner ordered the low limit retained?

It gets better. Route 3 was completely rebuilt a decade ago. The design speed for the project was 110 km/h (68 mph). The design speed is like a warranty: nothing in the road design requires a driver to go slower than 68 mph, not even on a wet road at night (the design conditions).

The average speed is not far from the design speed. The 85th percentile speed, which is supposed to be used for setting speed limits, is around 75 mph. A little over by my measurement, which found 1% compliance with the speed limit.

Eventually the absurdity of the 55 mph speed limit sunk in and in 2006 MassHighway traffic engineers recommended a speed limit increase. State Police vetoed the change, preferring the 99% violation rate that let them write tickets at will. Police have no legal role in setting speed limits. Somebody in the Romney administration weighed the risk of losing ticket revenue against the risk of being blamed for accidents. Police won.

After engineers lost that fight people began to worry about the high accident rate on Route 3. The state hired a consultant to do a Road Safety Audit. The consultant?s report blamed the low speed limit, among other factors, for the high crash rate. The report explicitly recommended raising the speed limit.

Three years later, state officials have not followed the advice of their engineers, their consultant, or 100,000 drivers per day. State police are still out there running speed traps and helping keep the road as dangerous and profitable as they can.

Anonymoussays:

Let’s see. Claims like Justin Beiber would go to prison; SOPA would shut down YouTube; and the internet would break were bandied about by opponents from Day One. The latter was still claimed after DNS blocking was removed from consideration and laughingly applied to blocking at the search engine level. The continued comparison of blocking the free exchange of political speech and ideas to preventing infringing activity was a central theme. If this debate was truly about free speech rather than free content, there’s have been riots over the TRUE censorship that Twitter is engaged in. But no….. crickets

It’s all about free content. Your actions speak louder than your FUD.

E. Zachary Knightsays:

Re:

Twitter engages in censorship? I know they have policies in place to follow DMCA notices and other take down notices from governments around the world. In fact, they are taking huge pains to mitigate the impact of such censorship requests.

As for the rest of your comments, you obviously were not following the protests.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re:

The claims were the NEXT Justin Beiber COULD go to prison. Not that Justin Beiber would go to prison himself.

OPA COULD shut down Youtube, as it would place liabilities on Youtube for the actions of it’s users, and to curtail said actions Youtube would be put in a difficult financial position.

The internet as we know it would break. There would be filtering. There would be U.S. restricted sites and there’d be the rest of the world.

Also, DNS blocking was removed from consideration FOR NOW. It was still on the table as far as possibly being implemented later.

The comparison between making a copy of a digital good and the actual theft and removal of a physical one is a central theme branded by your side of the debate, a comparison which flies contrary to a Supreme Court ruling and distinction on the matter itself.

If downloading a copy is truly theft of that good, then perhaps we should start applying the laws in regards to (you know) actual theft of the same good. Charging people with said crimes of theft and fining them as appropriate. Steal a cd, pay a $200 ticket (maybe a few days in lock up to a month). As opposed to owing millions.

It’s all about dollars. You can’t keep fleecing people any longer and now you’re upset and wanting to ruin the one method people have for entertaining themselves (along with distributing and creating anything they please, without having to give up their rights or give you a majority of the profits). But no… crickets. It’s all about people wanting a lawless society/internet and free stuff. /s

Your actions speak louder than your FUD. You know, actions like Hollywood accounting, bullying tactics, non-payment of royalties to artists, attempts at slipping in of words to deny creators the rights to take back their own creations, etc.

Want me to continue?

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re:

BTW, I don’t steal or copy anything. So there’d be no reason for me to be in court. Ever. Period. As such, my “take” on the Supreme Court wouldn’t need to be “accepted”. The Supreme Court has made a ruling on the matter, it is already accepted. It is the law of the land, the problem is the law of the land has been perverted and twisted as is seen fit by corporations who have the means (see “money”) to change the laws of the land to suit what they want.

Of course, my favorite part of your well thought out and length rebuttal is where you refuted EVERYTHING else I said with actual facts and evidence to debunk all my talking points. Kudos to you good troll. You have put me in place. I don’t know how I could ever have been so wrong about everything I said. [hangs head in shame]

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It helps to read the facts and holdings in court cases. In the case to which you refer the issue presented to the court was whether or not an aspect of copyright infringement fell within the scope of a criminal statute. The majority held it did not for the reason that in their view a criminal statute is to be read narrowly absent congressional direction otherwise. Thus, for purposes of the decision, the court held that what the defendant had done did not fall within the ambit of statute. Obviously, Congress could have modified the statute to make such an act “theft”.

The dissenting opinions would have held that the activity complained of was comprehended within the scope of the term “theft”.

Theft is a term developed at common law, and embraces a wide variety of actions. The fact so many here keep trying to limit it specifically to chattels misapprehends how the law actually works.

Your comment re “OPA” (presumably “SOPA”) is just plain wrong, as would be readily apparent if you read the statute and all of the elements stated in it that are necessary to establish a prima facie case that it has been violated. Unless YouTube decided to radically change its business model to embrace Pirate Bay-like conduct, SOPA would have zero force and effect on it. At most, its pursuing its current business model is fully immunized, even with SOPA, as long as it complies with Section 512 of the DMCA.

DNS blocking was removed from consideration for the time being until it can be studied in more detail. Could some form come back? Of course. Is in on the table and part of the pending bill? No. Might DNS blocking, if ever implemented break the internet? Probably not since it is ongoing as I type. Even so, it is an issue worthy of further debate.

Yes, it is all about dollars…and much more. What a horrific thought that one who has rights secured by law should be able to interfere with people who entertain themselves by coping freebies off the internet. Something is not quite right when those who break the law portray themselves as victims.

I will pass by your accounting screed simply because it is a screed, and nothing more. I will, however, make one point. I am personally unaware of any instance where a person signed by a major label who came out with a clunker album has been required to pay back to the label the money invested by the label to have the album prepared and distributed. Such labels are investors…not banks making loans.

Feel free to rebut if you have more information to add.

Michaelsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Yes, it is all about dollars…and much more. What a horrific thought that one who has rights secured by law should be able to interfere with people who entertain themselves by coping freebies off the internet. Something is not quite right when those who break the law portray themselves as victims.”

I always thought that it was rather ironic how the major labels go around claiming their poor artists are being hurt, all the while doing the most harm to the artists themselves, by far. Hunting down internet users and then charging them thousands per “infringement” is absurd on its face, to say nothing of their little ‘work for hire’ scheme, the dirty legislation they write in secrecy and bribe our politicians into supporting, etc.

The man in the three-piece suit equipped with his briefcase full of legal jargon is to be feared moreso than a 12-year old who downloads a song off the internet. Apparently even the law can be bought for a price.

Michaelsays:

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

In a myriad of ways. Only the big-name artists make any real profit from their contracts and even then they don’t retain ownership of their work. The label does. In addition, the label hoards the lion’s share of the profit. Very few artists have any serious level of creative control over their work, how it is promoted, et al. If an artist signs to a major label, they’re effectively signing away the rights to their work, their profit, their voice/image …everything. The label effectively owns them. Indentured servitude. Game over.

Anonymoussays:

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

What you seem to be talking about is how you view some of the provisions that may be contained in some contracts. Unless the contract is one of adhesion, it is clear that it was signed with the mutual assent of all parties, and as such has long been recognized at common law as a mutually binding and legally enforceable contract.

I am aware of no provision in any such contract where the parties agree that the term of the contract extends into the indefinite future. Thus, once the contract expires each party if free to pursue other opportunites with other third parties. To call this “indentured servitude” is plainly wrong.

Killercoolsays:

Re:

You people keep conflating government restrictions on speech to private restrictions on speech.
Once again:

Private corporations are private. The only people who can force them to regulate free speech (or NOT) are their shareholders, or the government. All a consumer has to do is move to a different medium/channel, unless the government has restricted that speech.

Our government is forbidden to restrict speech (barring a clear and present preventable danger). But only in our own country. Each country has it’s own sets of rules that it is allowed to follow.

Twitter is following the GOVERNMENT mandates in the countries it is being forced to censor. And it is, in fact, breaking those rules by doing it’s best to show it’s customers in those countries what is being censored, thereby mostly invalidating the censors.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re:

“All a consumer has to do is move to a different medium/channel, unless the government has restricted that speech.”

Or unless there are not alternatives. Or unless all the competitors are effectively colluding so that they all have the same restrictions. Both of these situations are so common in the US telecommunications business that it is accepted as normal.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re:

Beiber preformed others music without the proper payments/licenses. He uploaded infringing work after infringing work. As a serial offender I am sure they would make an example of him.

SOPA would have been used to shut down YouTube, or are you unaware of Viacom still trying to sue them out of existence while their other hand uploads more content.

DNS filtering would break DNSSEC, and would have broken the net. DNS blocking was not actually removed, just the suggestion it be delayed so we can shove the bill forward.

Maybe you missed the Media Corps demands of how Google should change their business to suit what they wanted over being a useful search tool. Because they never ever try to stretch laws to get their way.

Political Speech and Ideas, uh huh…. DaJaz1. Based only on claims from a media company the blog was sized and shuttered for over a year. The claims were untrue, and the takedown was covered up for over a year. A blog where people discussed music and their thoughts about it and shared music, music sent by the same labels that took them down with requests that it be posted and shared with their followers. So doing something they asked got them screwed for a year with a court case moving forward with them being kept in the dark the entire time.

Twitter is a private corporation who have enacted a policy to keep themselves from being blocked in certain countries. While it is censorship it is only censored where demanded by law, and records of who and why are filed with chilling effects. The case against DaJaz1 was so secret even the lawyer from the blog was denied access to the claims.

We have free content, there is a veritable ocean of new content being created by people everyday. Some is good, some is crap but its not controlled by a few gatekeepers who are in their death throws and will do anything to keep themselves afloat… except adapt.

0/10 – you Feared, you were Uncertain, and i Doubt anyone bought a single thing you were selling.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

Political Speech and Ideas, uh huh…. DaJaz1.

DaJaz would not be subject to SOPA, which you surely know. And as you also know, SOPA had no provision for seizure of accused sites. It sounds like your problem is largely with existing law.

We have free content, there is a veritable ocean of new content being created by people everyday. Some is good, some is crap but its not controlled by a few gatekeepers who are in their death throws [sic] and will do anything to keep themselves afloat… except adapt.

The problem is with the free content that is thrown into the ocean without compensating the owners of it. Believe it or not, there are professionals who need to be paid for their creative output.

Michaelsays:

Re: Re: Re:

“DaJaz would not be subject to SOPA, which you surely know. And as you also know, SOPA had no provision for seizure of accused sites. It sounds like your problem is largely with existing law.”

The real problem is with how the private corps are abusing the system in order to prop up their businesses. SOPA would effectively give private corps an internet kill switch to censor the internet with, among other damaging things.

“The problem is with the free content that is thrown into the ocean without compensating the owners of it. Believe it or not, there are professionals who need to be paid for their creative output.”

The legcy corps are still turning in record profits regardless, all the while rooking their stable of artists out of due compensation. Regardless, they’re not entitled to regulate the internet nor decide what individuals can/cannot do with their computing devices. Or are you trying to say that they are entitled to profit at the expense of our rights?

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re:

Just because DaJaz is not subject to SOPA does not make it okay to pass. In fact, it’s proof that it isn’t even needed. If the misinformation campaign on the RIAA/MPAA’s side can have a site seized and shut down under current law, then that alone is proof that there is no need for SOPA.

A foreign site was seized FOR OVER A YEAR. With little to no recourse available because information was kept from the attorney fighting on behalf of the site.

As far as free content that is thrown into the ocean, how do you know that the creators aren’t being compensated? You are either misinterpreting what was stated to suit your needs or you’re an idiot. Take your pick. I read what was written and understood (quite obviously and correctly) that NEW CONTENT IS BEING CREATED BY PEOPLE EVERYDAY AND IT IS FREE. As in they distribute it freely on Youtube and elsewhere. Which is the problem, insofar as the middlemen are panicking that people can do without them.

Believe it or not, there are professionals who DO NOT want or need to be paid for their work. And create and innovate just because they want to. And to share with others.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re:

SOPA had provisions for black holing sites from the view of the US without an adversarial process. Which means the gatekeepers get to decide what is or is not allowed.

oooh a shot at my spelling… I must have you scared.

Umm pookie, the owners are the one putting their content out there for free. And the good ones make money, without a gatekeeper stepping in and protecting them from the other 90% of their profits. Ever heard of “The Guild”?

0/10 – Did you not get the memo? I’m not a pushover, and I typo like a fiend… its one of my more endearing quirks.

TtfnJohnsays:

Re: Re: Re:

“The problem is with the free content that is thrown into the ocean without compensating the owners of it. Believe it or not, there are professionals who need to be paid for their creative output.”

And just who, exactly, is denying that?

Though, in the creative arts the correct ending is “who want to be paid” as a lot of them aren’t. At least regularly. And certainly not by the RIAA and MPAAs of the world unless you live on an entirely different world that the rest of us do.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“And just who, exactly, is denying that?”

This mental midget is only capable of viewing things in black and white Nothing else exists to him. Everybody has to be either a toady of the RIAA, welcoming their every action without question, or a pirate who wants to ensure that nobody ever gets paid. He’s incapable of registering anything other than these impossible positons.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

SOPA would do not one thing to YouTube, unless, of course, You Tube later decides to adopt a totally different business model that manifestly runs afoul of its provisions.

BTW, SOPA and the YouTube lawsuit have nothing at all in common. The allegations against YouTube are based upon it having engaged during its formative years in copyright infringement.

Gothenemsays:

Re:

No it isn’t. DNS blocking wasn’t the only reason that SOPA/PIPA would break the internet. You need to get all your facts before you start tossing around accusations like that.

The problem is the laws were very flawed. First of all, the Justin Beiber issue was a problem at first, but still valid. I actually heard someone say that Justin Bieber would not be affected anymore because it only affects non-american infringers. I guess he never bothered to check to see if Bieber was American (he’s not).

SOPA would shut down YouTube. The first time someone threw an infringing video on You Tube, the whole site could get shut down. without notice. And all those legit videos???

Oh well.

As for the whole twitter argument, they actually REMOVE censoring things, and we are supposed to riot over it? Get your facts strait, and then we’ll talk.

Until you actually understand the facts, you look like most SOPA/PIPA supporters, as uninformed about the actual effects these bills would have.

Have you even read the bills?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

SOPA would shut down YouTube. The first time someone threw an infringing video on You Tube, the whole site could get shut down. without notice. And all those legit videos???

This is exactly the sort of misinformation campaign that the anti-SOPA insurgents ran. You bought it, hook, line and sinker. Read the fucking law. Even the Lord High Piracy Apologist, Masnick would disagree with this assertion. Yet you state it here as a fact. And you got this “fact” from the lying scum who distorted the implications of the bill to dupe people like you and whip you up into a frenzy. Thanks for making my point more eloquently than I ever could.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

Youtube’s only safe from sopa because it’s not a foreign site.

Here’s a piece of text from the so called f-ing law:
” No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that–

(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property;…”

So if youtube were a foreign site, and its payment providers, registrars, etc. get a phone call from Movies-R-Us production studios stating that something on youtube.ru is infringing and that they have no intention of bringing secondary infringement actions against said service providers if they take voluntary action and secure immunity for themselves – what do you think would quickly happen?

silverscarcatsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You’re so silly!

Did you not read the part about SOPA where ISPs would be LIABLE if they did not take down whole websites?

Hey, look, someone complains to the ISP responsible for Youtube.

Youtube is now gone.

Thanks for screwing stuff up, SOPA.

Look, AC, just go look at how copyright claims are handled on Youtube. I saw a copyright claim on a video from Sony, when neither the video, nor the song used in the video, were owned by Sony at all, yet, it was still taken down.

And that’s with the DMCA, and that was only a couple months ago.

SOPA is worse, so, no, SOPA WOULD break the internet.

weneedhelpsays:

Re: Re: Re:

Sorry AC you need to take your own advice to Read the fucking law.

Can I be a Lord High Piracy Apologist too. That just sounds awesome.

Weneedhelp, Lord High Piracy Apologist.

Yes I like that. Mind if I use it? Too bad I will anyway.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
Yes asshole read it. Dont just look at it, read it. We will all be here to explain the big words and tough paragraphs for you.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re:

“Great!! So is Google, Comcast, Verizon and ATT. Glad to see you don’t object.”

And that’s the point you’re missing. Google, Comcast, etc are all objecting to bills like SOPA. They can CHOOSE to restrict whatever speech they want, but at the moment, they are under no legal compunction to do so and as such they ARE NOT AND WILL NOT.

Which means you and your ilk need to get over yourselves and stop telling others how you want them to do things to suit you.

In fact, the only ones who object to quite a bit are you and your ilk. Can’t compete, legislate. Can’t innovate, legislate. And so on and so forth. You object to the world and technology passing you by. It’s not our problem, it’s yours. Until you try and push your wants and needs and laws on other corporations and on us the people. Then it’s our problem. And as we recently saw, we will put you in your place should the need arise. Look what we managed to accomplish with one day’s worth of protest. Just think about and remember that the next time you try and push such idiocy on the rest of us, Shill.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, it’s a good thing I DID NOT say the ISP’s came out against Sopa. In fact, I only directly named Google and Comcast. Comcast might be considered one ISP. But they aren’t multiple.

Unless you infer “ISP’s” from “etc”, but by “etc” I meant other companies and groups in general. Without naming any one in particular (I went with what you originally stated, FYI. Google, Comcast… up above. Did you mention any ISP’s?)

So, the only FUD and disinformation being spoken/spewed here is by yourself.

On an unrelated note, the ISP’s will do what’s in their best interest. Enabling data caps, throttling usage, etc. all while charging more and more to “maintain” their networks and pipelines (all while not actually building and expanding upon their current networks/pipelines). When services grow to a point where using lots of bandwidth is the norm (as it is currently becoming with things like Netflix and Spotify and Pandora and all those streaming and cloud services) and they have to update their current networks or risk angering customers, then they might lobby for this or that. But they usually are willing to work with their customers and satisfy their needs, to an extant.

The same can’t be said of your entertainment industries (for the most part)

Anonymous Cowardsays:

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

I didn’t say there were against the bill, I said they came out against it. Unless I deleted the part that they were specifically against the DNS blocking due to their plans for DNSSEC implementation.

I notice you ignored everything else I said to focus on that one part though. How lovely? Nitpick your battles much?

We are back to where we started, with you stating something and having it turned around on you or being disproved entirely.

It’s okay FUDboy, we all get it. You’re a shill. In a real debate or argument, you’ve got nothing to back you up. The rest of us have facts, evidence, logic, and so on and so forth. Not to mention the support of an obviously not so minor amount of people. No, not thieves and pirates and whatever other derogatory terms you feel like throwing out that don’t actually apply. I’m talking about actual citizens (who can voice their opinion and vote their minds) as well as customers (who can deny you the contents of their wallets).

Face it, the minority here (on this site) is you. And people like you. The minority (as far as reality is concerned) is people who share your opinion and the corporations whose input into the GDP is less than 1%. Yet who feel the need to try and force their points of view and problems onto the rest of us.

Machin Shinsays:

Re:

Might I take a moment to point a VERY important thing out here.

SOPA was GOVERNMENT trying to censor the ENTIRE internet.

Twitter is censoring content on THEIR servers.

Twitter as a private company is allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their stuff. It only affects their users. If the users don’t like it they can go elsewhere.

SOPA on the other hand was government wanting power over things that do not belong to them. That is extremely different than a company choosing to do something voluntarily with their own servers.

Rich Kulawiecsays:

Re: :O

Groups such as the RIAA don’t own the internet, let alone pay the bills, invest in infrastructure, research and development, et al.,[…]

A point I’ve made repeatedly. The RIAA (and its members) and the MPAA (and its members) have contributed, over the last 4 decades, a grand total of 0.0 to the Internet. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Meanwhile, we geeks have built for them the greatest promotion and distribution mechanism that they could ever want. It’s so amazingly good that it’s beyond their pitifully feeble comprehension…which is, of course, why they want to destroy it. It’s not that they won’t understand it, it’s that they can’t.

Michaelsays:

Re: Re: :O

No, they understand it to an extent. They just can’t get over the fact that there’s something of the scope of the internet which they don’t get to control. Too bad for them. Do internet/tech companies write broad legislation and bribe politicians in order to impose restrictive laws on their businesses? No.

Machin Shinsays:

Re: Re: Re: :O

I really think it is time we start though. Who is with me on getting a bill passed that bans remakes of old movies without prior approval? This law will also make sequels much more difficult to make unless planned before hand.

They will have to submit a detailed plan to a special comity stating the reasons for remaking a movie along with their plans on how they plan to add anything to it. This submission will have to be made with a $1000 payment for the hassle of looking at their sorry plans. It then goes up for vote on the merits.

Sequels will have a very similar process. I think the fee on that will likely need to be $5000. It will take much higher pay to keep the poor people awake reviewing these plans.

BigKeithOsays:

Re: Re: Re: :O

Who gives a shit about this media company content?! Take it away!! No one cares!!

I think that is one of the most stunning things about your side of the argument (other than the pathological need to lie to make your point), you think that everyone goes online to look at your stupid content.

The internet existed before your crap made it online and it would exist without it. I for one don’t go online to watch crappy TV and the vast majority of people I know don’t either. Take it all away, no one cares.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :O

Millions downloading billions? Is that the American billion or the British billion? Each individual in those millions is downloading at least a thousand copies? Really? And you want to punish the whole Internet for that? Tell you what – whenever artists screw up, or members of the labels are caught lying, as they have been on multiple occasions, when we get to decide their punishment and penalties, then we’ll talk.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re: :O

Pretty soon no one is going to own Hulu, because they can’t find a buyer for the service. You see the media corps feel they should get more than consumers are willing to give, and that is gutting Hulu from having any money to develop anything new.
They want billions for Hulu and are offering no deals for content in the sale… thats almost as smart as making people pay to get more commercials than the free users got.

silverscarcatsays:

Re: Re: Re: :O

Hulu’s offered nothing that Youtube already had. And Youtube has better selections of shows.

Really, did the RIAA or MPAA give us blogs?

Or Instant Messaging?

Social Media?

SKYPE?

Webcams?

3G? 4G?

Wireless Cellphones/routers?

Firefox? Internet Explorer? Chrome?

Wikipedia?

How about online gaming?

Face it, they gave us nothing that we use in our daily lives and they want to control it.

Too bad, so sad.

Now go back to Dodd and lick his shoes.

silverscarcatsays:

Re: Re: Re: :O

One more thing, AC, the content creators didn’t do this, but other supporters of SOPA and PIPA did…

You know that nasty little bit torrent that “pirates” use to get stuff that isn’t available anywhere?

Guess what?

The supporters of SOPA and PIPA CREATED Bit Torrent and SHOWED EVERYONE how to USE it!!

If anything, the MPAA and the RIAA should go after the people supporting SOPA and PIPA first.

Magicl1says:

Lying to Congress

If we make the assumption that the media companies were lying to Congress, then why is the Attorney General of the US not investigating. I understand that the media people were verbalizing without it being sworn testimony and the AG can’t get involved. But, should we not be pressuring Congress to make sure all testimony or statements are under oath so those who intentionally misrepresent the situation can be held accountable?

Josef Anvilsays:

Well it sounds like both sides are ready to negotiate

Neither the RIAA nor MPAA are interested in a dialogue with the opponents of SOPA/PIPA. They fail to realize that these laws were stopped in their tracks by the content industry’s CUSTOMERS.

Seems that Sherman followed the invitation to dialogue with a hearty, “We want to talk with you, but you just have to understand that the content industry is right and anyone who opposes us is wrong. So let’s sit down and talk until you agree with me.”

The trolls can rally around “They just want free shit… they are thieves” or whatever other rhetoric they choose, but the fact is that the paying customers don’t want any laws that hinder freedom or innovation on the net.

Anonymous Anonymous Cowardsays:

The purpose of shills!

I have come to believe that the shill show up to help reinforce the position of the righteous. If the did not spew their dreck, how would we have the motivation to explain, and reexplain, and come up with new explanations? I think they actually add to the conversation, so long as one does not fall for their false premises.

Anonymoussays:

although i agree with the article, if we are going to ‘Start With The RIAA’s Misinformation Campaign’, why not mention the rest of their misinformation? ‘the amount of money the entertainment industries lose because of file sharing’? or maybe ‘every download is a lost sale’? what about ‘the 100,000’s jobs lost’?

surfersays:

actual impact?

how have we gotten to this point? this might actually be the turn of the tide.. the rhetoric doesn’t work anymore, the time honored ‘if you repeat something often enough..’, doesn’t work anymore. controlling mainstream media to spew FUD doesn’t work anymore. trolling techdirt doesn’t work any more.. sigh, and I come here mostly for the copytard maximalists childish rantings of ‘I want a pony!’. and the incomprehensible inability to form realistic (as in based here with us in reality) points of debate.

MAFIAA GDP as of 2010 was the same as the Pet Industry, and Waste Management. Software was 3x the MAFIAA, and Radio and TV were 4x.

http://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/GDPbyInd_VA_NAICS_1998-2010.xls

as a content creator myself, I write software, and am completely aware of copyright and patents,.. I have quite a few. I changed my business model 12 years ago, I created a physical scarcity and not an artificial one, and I have been making money ever since. So my advice to the MAFIAA is simple; put the crack pipe down, get off the couch, and go get a fscking job.

Pro-SOPA people praised Chinese censorship

I cited Bono on this during the UK DEA debate:

We?re the post office, they tell us; who knows what?s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America?s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China?s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it?s perfectly possible to track content.

At the SOPA hearings:

The MPAA’s Michael O’Leary showed support for regimes that censor the internet, by saying that “the internet isn’t broken” in places like China and Iran

It’s not FUD to say RIAA and MPAA calling for censorship is like China when they make that comparison themselves, with China as the example they want.

wvhillbillysays:

Police state

I see this nation on a fast track to implementing a police state, a surveillance state where our every move will be monitored, comments we make on Internet blogs will be monitored, our financial transactions, all will be monitored by our government. Already we have the TSA harassing passengers in airports, setting up checkpoints on highways, showing up at sports events etc. And now we have facial recognition software which with surveillance cameras on every street corner can aid police in locating and arresting any person they want to.

SOPA/PIPA to the best of my knowledge have no safeguards against false reporting, no due process before blocking a website, no way of an accused website of defending itself, etc. These bills if passed into law will be open to massive abuse. Any corporation or the US Government itself will have the power to shut down any website it doesn’t like. And now we have ACTA and TPP each of which outdoes previous bills on restrictions. And worst of all these bills have been put on a fast track and have been negotiated in strictest secrecy by insiders, while the public has been left in the dark, except for what few documents have been leaked by insiders.

I see all of these as more tools to be used in implementing said police state than anything else. I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong. But that’s what I see coming.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Police state

SOPA/PIPA to the best of my knowledge have no safeguards against false reporting, no due process before blocking a website, no way of an accused website of defending itself, etc. These bills if passed into law will be open to massive abuse. Any corporation or the US Government itself will have the power to shut down any website it doesn’t like.

This is why you WV rubes should lay off the squeezings. Under these proposed bills, an accused website had the same rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as any other civil litigant. Try reading the bill before commenting on it.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

It’s funny that the MPAA can throw a tantrum over politicians that they paid for, but citizens aren’t allowed to throw tantrums over politicians that they voted for. Both were investments into politicians who they hoped would provide the stuff they asked for – and ended up not getting it. So why is alright for the MPAA to rant about funding them – but instead citizens are asked to go pound sand because they voted for them?

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