“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.

Actually, speed limits do nothing to keep people safe.

Hey look everyone, TAM is here to provide an example. Thanks TAM!

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.

Piracy costs the economy billions of dollars a day!

Groups such as the RIAA don’t own the internet, let alone pay the bills, invest in infrastructure, research and development, et al., so they have about the same right to impose an internet road block as I do a real one: none whatsoever.

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?

Yes DC insiders do a lot of backroom dealing and put out a lot of misinformation but let’s be honest so do a lot of people outside the beltway. Can we say something else besides “DC insider?”

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.

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.

“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?

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.

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’?

Last I checked, Twitter was a private entity, they can choose to restrict whatever speech they want, if you don’t like it find another service, there are plenty.

“Read the fucking law”

Please quote where it says “page” or “section” instead of “site”, boy.

Oh, you can’t!
Too Bad!
So Sad!

I particularly like the point that the only difference between the US and China would be what content is censored. And I suspect that distinction would diminish over time. Just read today how DHS is scanning social networks for ‘anti-government’ comments. How big a step would it be for scanning to turn into banning?

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?

and lets not forget that “File Sharers Are ‘Undermining Humanitarian Efforts In Haiti’.” That’s not misinformation, it’s true!!

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.

Maybe the “creative” industry should try and write more coherent legislation?

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.

“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?

“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.

The ISP’s did not come out against SOPA. Again more FUD courtesy of the disinformation campaign.

I thought the ISPs were secretly lobbying Google who were secretly lobbying the unwashed masses?

God! Get your facts straight.

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)

Why don’t you go to open congress.org and see what side of the bill Comcast was on FUDboy.

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.

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.

Alright, give me the language that says that then.

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.

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.

Media companies contribute, they spent over $150,000 per legislator in lobbying last quarter to push these laws through. Should be a lot of nice new cars on Capitol Hill after that, can’t blame the recording industry for being angry that they didn’t get what they paid for.

@Anonymous Coward, Feb 10th, 2012 @ 7:44am

“Piracy costs the economy billions of dollars a day!”

This is based upon what? Now we’re talking true fud.

Not really. BTW, your take on the Supreme Court would likely not be accepted by the court were you to present is as an argument.

Can’t speak about the person to whom you responded, but can say that based upon this comment you have not read either.

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]

“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.

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.