MPAA Head Chris Dodd: I'm Willing To Discuss Copyright Reform As Long As Nothing Changes
from the your-input-will-be-ignored-in-the-order-it-is-received dept
Chris Dodd, head of the MPAA, has decided that, 16 years after the Napsterpocalypse (which singlehandedly killed the recording and motion picture industries, both of which are now nothing but vague memories for pre-Gen Xers), it’s time to meet the tech industry in the middle and start working together.
But, as is Dodd’s way, “in the middle” means drawing a line inches away from the MPAA’s position and “working together” means making heavy concessions to the incumbent industries. Here’s what the Grand Dame of the movie business had to say while attending a celebration of US-Germany film collaborations.
“New technology has made the international exchange of cultural and entertainment content faster, easier and increasingly, a two-way street,” he said. “Technology and content need to live with each other. … Technology needs content, and content needs technology.”
So far, so good, even if it is a rather obvious statement. And so far, this preamble echoes the recent words of Jean Michel Jarre, who also began with an open-minded position when discussing the tech/content relationship, shortly before zipping it shut entirely and declaring copyright industries entitled to $300-400 of every smartphone sale.
Dodd says it’s a two-way street… then sets about hanging new one-way signs all over the place.
Addressing copyright rules, Dodd said he was “not frightened of reviewing or reforming copyright,” but said copyright rules shouldn’t be “eroded.”
Great. Dodd’s perfectly happy to discuss or reform copyright, just as long as nothing changes. Life +70 forever, then? Or more? The only thing that’s “eroded” over time is the public domain. The original copyright “rules” stated that these rights would be secured for a limited time. Life +70 years is limited in terms of the entire history and future of the world, but it’s certainly not “limited” in any logical sense of the word. Life +70 years is, on average, 110-130 years of copyright protection, which is more or less 50% of this country’s total length of existence.
So, let’s “review” copyright, but only if we’re looking to “strengthen” the rules (read: expand and extend). And let’s “reform” copyright, but only as long as nothing at all existing changes. Thanks for the invite, Chris, but this hardly looks like a promising discussion. All Dodd’s looking for is concessions from the tech industry — more permission forms and licensing fees and so on, until long after everyone has forgotten such tech blips as Facebook and Twitter and The Pirate Bay.
The only way the copyright industry (and I don’t mean creators, I mean the gatekeepers who have watched their cherished gates erode into nearly nothing) is going to keep up with the tech industry is to actually meet somewhere in the middle. And the industry needs to do a lot of catching up. We’re seeing industry figureheads finally recognize they can’t keep treating each new tech advance as the enemy, but it’s been a long, long time coming. They still seem to put 90% of their effort into enforcement, rather than innovation, and Dodd’s half-assed “halfway” gesture indicates the MPAA is unwilling to consider anything that doesn’t keep its extended-to-the-point-of-surreality copyright protection intact.
Filed Under: chris dodd, copyright reform, mpaa
Comments on “MPAA Head Chris Dodd: I'm Willing To Discuss Copyright Reform As Long As Nothing Changes”
Dying old despicable draconian.
That’s what Dodd will be remembered as.
Him and his ilk need to hurry up and die so the Phoenix can rise and prove copyright is NOT needed.
110-130 years of copyright protection, which is more or less 50% of this country’s total length of existence.
Sheesh. That’s 50% too short. In fact it’s infinitesimal. We can’t have a whole country freeloading on the hard works of our ape ancestors, can we?
A half-truth
“Technology and content need to live with each other. ? Technology needs content, and content needs technology.”
Here’s the thing though, and it’s something they would never admit: it doesn’t have to be their content. Hollywood and the recording industry could die overnight, and within a year or two they’d be replaced(and with the increasing number of alternative sources for music and services for musicians, the recording industry is already experiencing this).
Now, would the replacements be as well funded? Probably not, but less money doesn’t automatically mean lower quality(just like more money doesn’t automatically mean higher quality content*), and with how fast tech advances, even with a low budget some amazing special effects can be pulled off, something that will only get better as the years pass.
Moreover, lower budget, and less special effects, means a movie needs to focus more on those trifling things like ‘plot’, ‘character’ and such, you can’t just throw a bunch of explosions up and let that carry the film, something they don’t seem to have figured out yet.
*For example:
Blair Witch Project
Budget: Between $20,000 and $750,000, depending on the sources.
Box office: $248,639,099
The Lone Ranger
Budget: $225?250 million
Box office: $260,502,115
Re: A half-truth
On the contrary, content needs technology to help making it available. Take the Internet away and you’ll see people much, much less likely to discover smaller artists. Which is the main benefit of current times: everybody has their space and opportunity to give it a try. Pre-internet era was all about what went to the radios. It’s that power the MAFIAA lost. And is all whinny over it instead of venturing in these new times as an enabler.
Re: Re: A half-truth
On the contrary, content needs technology to help making it available.
I’m not saying it doesn’t, what I’m saying is that their particular content isn’t as important to the technology half as they like to pretend.
Their content could disappear overnight, and technology would continue on with only a minor bump at most, so for them to act as though tech needs them as much as they need tech is a massive overestimation of their importance.
Re: Re: Re: A half-truth
Oh, true enough, my reading comprehension fail! As I said before: The entitlement! It burns!
Re: A half-truth
That’s right. Big Media needs technology a hell of a lot more than technology needs Big Media, since technology doesn’t need Big Media at all.
Re: Re: A half-truth
It’s hilarious how you flat-earthers think you’re convincing anyone with your silly bullshit.
Go back to playing video games in your parent’s basement.
Re: Re: Re: A half-truth
Wanna know what’s even funnier!? Playing video games anywhere because Internet and making people believe it can only be done from a basement. Base intelligence is an intelligence requisite for functioning at entry levels. Get yourself some. The only bar set is your own.
Re: Re: Re: A half-truth
Now there’s a convincing rebuttal!
Re: Re: Re: A half-truth
You know, you could have just said, ‘I have no counter argument against what’s been posted here’, probably would have saved you some time.
Also, ‘flat earthers’, ‘playing in your mom’s basement’, what are you, 5?
Re: Re: Re: A half-truth
I’ve only met two people who had video games in their parents basement, and both of them were still in high school.
Most video games are played in the living room.
Re: A half-truth
But every studio movie needs to lose money how else do they avoid taxes?
Re: A half-truth
“but less money doesn’t automatically mean lower quality”
Yes indeed. I’ll reinforce your point and take this even further. Based on observing the movies that have been produced over the past several years, a smaller budget actually increases the odds that the movie will be of higher quality.
Re: Re: A half-truth
Which in turn increases the odds that a Hollywood will get their claws into it further, throw 10x at a sequel (needed or not), and a potentially good movie/franchise is ruined in less time than it takes to pop the corn…
Limited time...
I’m sorry, but if something is under Copyright from before I’m born until well after I will likely be alive, then, it doesn’t matter if there *IS* a limit, for me, it’s eternal.
And that is why I do not support copyright, it is eternal, regardless of what is said.
Re: Limited time...
I was saying something very similar this weekend to a friend. I’d also like to note that from the perspective of a creator, it’s also eternal.
Re: Re: Limited time...
I’ve been saying this for awhile. But I prefer the way you two have put it.
Limited time? For who, God?
Re: Limited time...
Copyright should not last more than two cultural generations. While people are still likely to want to watch 80s movies in the 90s, 80s movies in the 00’s is much less likely.
Much of culture is consumed by the younger generations, no point in locking up culture that they don’t care about.
“I’m willing to ‘discuss’ you giving me more concessions, and giving me more goodies and treats, and generally not opposing me in any way. See? See how reasonable and open-minded I am? I am willing to ‘discuss’ me getting exactly what I want.”
God damn MPAA assholes.
Seriously...
I’m kind of tired of the copyright maximalists…
Half way in copyright law would be going back to 1909 and erasing the 38 years of Jack Valenti and his absurd paranoia over new technology.
Going back would be making fair use about the public and taking away their monopolies in the theater and abroad.
Going back would be about less moral pleas and some showi of facts that support the long tail of copyright.
Nothing exists. Chris Dodd has to show that his logic is standard for anyone but himself. That claim hasn’t been proven. Why should I respect anything he says or does if it’s a claim made out thin air?
And just to add to this, he uses money and lobbying tricks to have ICE go after his competition.
What a pedant…
Re: Seriously...
Weird… It logged me out for my comment…
Claimed.
I and many others are finding a whole world of content on line. Maybe the main difference here is that it doesn’t have to be from those that think they should be the major gatekeepers.
I congratulation them on getting me off their products and encourage them to continue as it will do others the same way. Not much sense in guarding a gate no one uses. Profit lines will see the pattern as usage does.
Maybe when they are flat broke they will no longer be able to shuck and jive on the worth of copyright. No longer will lobbyist be looking to who they can influence if they have no money.
Patterns are already developing in that direction. Think about it. At one time during the heyday of music, The Beatles had the most songs in the Top 10 at one time. The song that stayed the longest there was from the Top 40 and was Frank Sinatra’s “My Way” for 75 weeks between April 1969 and Sep 1971.
Today’s music market is a different critter. Mariah Carey and Boyz II Men performed “One Sweet Day” which stayed at the Top 10 for 16 weeks. That is the record longest Top 10 of recent years. Nor is it getting better. I would say that this beat everyone over the head for sharing music on line isn’t helping their cause but rather is choking it to death.
Copyright lasts 110-130 years, and movies have been around 118 years. Hmm…. They will fight to keep their movies under copyright forever.
My only question is how can they possibly manage such huge film libraries, and why aren’t ALL their movies available to the public? Thanks to the internet, every movie ever made can be made available to the public in one way or another.
If they’re going to be the stewards of culture, they need to at the very least release the material or lose the privilege.
Chris Dodd’s worldview is distorted by the cynical company he keeps, where technology is seen only as a vehicle for pushing content to “consumers”. Technology does not need content; tech is quite capable of generating content on its own. Does content need tech? It depends on the content, of course – a capella singing obviously doesn’t need it, but enabling that moment to persist does.
Re: Re:
Tech may need Content, but Content needs Tech more.
Tech is useful by itself. The internet existed just fine before anyone put music or movies online. Some would argue that it was in some ways better off.
Content is nothing but live performances without tech. (If you keep peeling back layers of tech, that’s where you end up.)
Content will find Tech because it needs it. If it isn’t Chris Dodd’s content that finds Tech, it will be someone else’s content that finds Tech. Think about that. That is why they like the idea of taxes and levies on Tech. So that content nobody wants can still get subsidized by content people do want.
Re: Re: Re:
“Some would argue that it was in some ways better off.”
I argue this. The inclusion of major media products on the internet, in particular, has been nothing but bad for the internet.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I concur, however, bringing “heavy” media on board has driven some welcome changes in protocols and their efficiencies.
What has been bad for the Internet*, in particular, has been the direct interference of, by, from and for copyright maximalists. (* without delving into current security aspects, that is)
Even implying that the Internet needs big media’s content indicates a special sort of ignorance. Insisting the same is grounds for terminating discussion. Blind, willful and unbridled ignorance.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dunno, John, I like being able to share content from YouTube, etc. While it’s true there are some bad actors determined to hijack the internet and make it work for themselves, by and large the advent of major media products has made the internet more accessible to people who might otherwise have left it to “the nerds.”
I must confess, I’d never have gone near it if it had been restricted to bone-dry text-only documents and code snippets. What makes the internet so great is what is on it, and much of that is awesome. One man’s major media product is another’s culture, and the best thing about the internet is that we can grow and share culture across borders. If media were to be removed from the internet, it’d be the poorer for it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’m talking about major media products, not real people sharing things on YouTube. That sort of thing is a win!
“by and large the advent of major media products has made the internet more accessible to people who might otherwise have left it to “the nerds.””
How so?
“What makes the internet so great is what is on it, and much of that is awesome.”
I don’t disagree at all!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Eh, it’s only an opinion. I like to watch the documentaries, etc., on YouTube, not just cat videos. There are some really great ones around.
I wouldn’t have had much interest in the internet except as an online dictionary or phone book if I didn’t have the opportunity to read books via the Gutenberg Project, etc., or watch movies and TV shows on streaming sites including YouTube. I doubt I’d have found that content via the usual means as it’s not widely available in libraries, etc.
TD itself is an example of a major media product, IMHO. It’s basically an online newspaper/magazine, isn’t it? If you don’t concur with that, what of CNet, Wired, and sites like that? I also read online newspapers, many of which aren’t paywalled.
I use the internet for work, but I wouldn’t browse it on my breaks if there wasn’t cool stuff to read, and I certainly wouldn’t use it at home for the same reason. Imagine an internet reduced to blogging and online document publishing, and perhaps some sales functionality. No, thanks. Call me greedy, but I want more.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“TD itself is an example of a major media product, IMHO”
Ahh, perhaps that’s the source of our disconnect. I don’t consider TD a major media product at all. What I mean by “major media product” is one produced by a major media company — the big movies houses, record labels, etc.
I’m not talking about media products which are large or comprehensive in scope.
“Imagine an internet reduced to blogging and online document publishing, and perhaps some sales functionality.”
No need. before the major media companies wer on the internet, there was a hell of a lot more than blogging and online document publishing and sales. You even still had the Gutenberg Project back in those days. It was in many ways a richer environment than it is now.
Most of what you say you value on the internet now existed back then as well. The major exception is video, due to the technical constraints of the day. (But even then, you could do it — even VoIP and video teleconferencing, if you had a fat pipe and joined the MBONE network.)
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“I like to watch the documentaries, etc., on YouTube, not just cat videos.”
Most good documentaries are independent productions and have nothing to do with the “major media” companies.
Why do people pretend that there’s nothing apart from cat videos and major studio content on YouTube, anyway? There’s one hell of a lot more useful independently produced content.
“TD itself is an example of a major media product, IMHO. It’s basically an online newspaper/magazine, isn’t it?”
No, it’s a blog.
What definition of “major media” are you using? You’ve gone from saying that you like “major media” online because other wise you wouldn’t be able to watch the videos, now you’re saying that text-only content is “major media”? I have a blog myself, am I a major media producer now?
“I use the internet for work, but I wouldn’t browse it on my breaks if there wasn’t cool stuff to read”
Agreed. But that stuff existed well before media corporations got involved, and will do if they leave. Plus, what are you reading, if it’s not “bone dry text”?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I don’t know, to be honest.
And to be fair, I’ve got a rather broad definition of “major media products.” To me, it means “digital version of physical items such as magazines, newspapers, and commercial video and audio products.”
TD is more of a magazine than a blog, IMHO. I also have a blog and don’t consider it to be anything more than a personal rant space.
What am I reading? TD, Wired, The Atlantic, The Guardian… By “bone dry text” I meant research documents, etc.
I only started using the internet in the last ten years, I wasn’t on it when it started.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“TD is more of a magazine than a blog, IMHO.”
Well, I consider the opposite, especially since most of the value with this site is the comments rather than the stories themselves. Techdirt usually comments on stories broken elsewhere, often a day or two later – it’s not a primary news source, it’s where people discuss news. When was the last time you had discussions with other readers of a magazine, apart maybe from one page where a couple of letters get printed? With the discussion element, it’s a totally different beast.
“I also have a blog and don’t consider it to be anything more than a personal rant space.”
My main blog is reviews of horror movies, though I tend to be even-handed and don’t rant too often. That doesn’t mean I’m in the same media space as Fangoria.
“By “bone dry text” I meant research documents, etc. I only started using the internet in the last ten years, I wasn’t on it when it started.”
So, I’m confused why you think that research documents was all there was before your time. I’ve been online since 1996, and that was relatively late in all honesty. It’s true that the original form of the internet was mainly research documents and the like, but that ceased to be true long before I got online. By that time, large portions of the web was already porn, gaming, chatrooms, nerd rants and ecommerce among many other things. Although the forms they took may have been rather different in the days of 33.6 & 56K dialup, none of that required “major media”.
I’ll admit we’re apparently using massively different definition of media, but either we’re arguing completely different things or you have rather an incorrect view of what the internet was before you got here. The thing that made the things you’re talking about possible was the widespread adoption of broadband, not major corporations getting involved.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I’ve been online since… The early 90s, about 1994 or 1995.
Playing Descent, Quake and Doom at school with friends via LAN, looking up information on shows, printing off fanfiction (didn’t know what the term was at the time) to read later, looking up information on how to find all the items on various video games, information on movies, video games that were coming out, email, chatting with complete strangers.
Remembering how Geocities was the awesome webhosting website, the dotcom boom of 1996-1997.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I dunno, John, I like being able to share content from YouTube, etc.”
…and ability that the major media companies have tried and are trying to block to “protect their profits” because they might have some claim to some of the content you’re sharing.
I believe that’s what he’s getting at – not that media itself is a problem (be that images, videos, music, whatever), but the huge negative influence the major legacy corporate media players have had when they decided to get involved.
“people who might otherwise have left it to “the nerds.”
Erm, “the nerds” are the people who built everything from the infrastructure necessary for the web to exist to YouTube itself. If “the nerds” wren’t involved, all you’d have is whatever the **AAs wanted to offer you, in the gloriously restricted, expensive and tired ways they usually try to offer such things. YouTube might exist under them, but you’d probably only be able to “share” whatever they pre-approved – and at a cost. Then again, they probably wouldn’t bother and only offer you DVDs after they shut the net down because they couldn’t work out how to use it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I meant no offense by my usage of the word “nerds,” hence the quote marks. What I meant was that the internet was begun by the tech and academic community as a DARPA project and now everyone uses it.
The variety of content on it today appeals to a much broader range of people than it did at first. Whether this is a good thing or not must surely be in the eye of the beholder.
And may I add, I am most grateful to the builders of the infrastructure, etc., and have nothing but the greatest respect for them. I’m sorry that didn’t come across in my comments.
I’m no fan of the **AAs and never have been. I actually sympathize with the Pirate Party and other internet freedom advocates, and have done so since I started reading TD.
Did you hear that whooshing sound as that statement went flying over my head? I’m afraid my tech knowledge doesn’t stretch that far.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“The variety of content on it today appeals to a much broader range of people than it did at first.”
Yes, it did change massively when it stopped being a purely military and academic research technology and opened up to the general public. Why does this mean that it’s all due to “major media”? You’re still not making sense.
“Did you hear that whooshing sound as that statement went flying over my head?”
Did you notice I didn’t say that? Apparently quoting people properly is beyond your tech knowledge as well, not to mention clarifying what the hell you’re talking about.
Go on, please – define what you mean by “major media”. So far you seem to be referring to anything that doesn’t resemble a form of the internet that stopped existing in the 80s, if not before.
John and myself are referring to major corporate influence, which has been a very negative influence of the internet in comparison to before they started getting involved in trying to claim it for themselves.
Yes, copyright law length matters because of all the new music and new movies Tim Cushing steals.
oh wait…
Don’t feed the bridge troll.
What did you expect after all the money they poured into getting laws passed so they can print their own money?
"Blazing Saddles" an unintentional mocking of the MPAA
There is a scene where Hedley Lamarr sends his thugs to destroy the town of Rock Ridge. To slow them down Bart puts up a tollbooth in the middle of nowhere. Instead of riding around it Taggart, has everyone wait while he sends one of his men to “get a shitload of dimes.”
MPAA we know (what you don’t or won’t acknowledge) that your gatekeeping is a bad joke and we have no problem going around it while giving you the same respect you show us.
“Technology needs content, and content needs technology”
let me fix this:
“old content needs technology to stay relevant, while technology will generate new content even if the old disappears.”
the reality is simply that people will always create things, *because they can*. And the new technology that becomes available makes it easier than ever to make content with quality and sophistication that rivals big budget productions of the past.
Media production used to be a small niche of people able to afford the (back then) expensive materials to do the production, but technology made these expensive gadgets into a commodity. And in the same turn because of the now existing ease of creation media *itself* has become a commodity.
They are irrelevant because what once used to be a luxury is now a commodity but they still try to charge the price of a luxury.
“The internet existed just fine before anyone put music or movies online. “
No it didn’t.
All these “tech” companies are nothing but advertising companies. That’s it. They exist to sell ads and sell data to other ad companies.
So, to reiterate what even the dumbest simpleton already knows, movies and music existed just fine before the internet and its cesspool of ads.
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
You might want to get the pain in your ass checked out.
It already appears to be affecting your brain.
And, yes, the Internet will never “need” MPAA movies nor RIAA music, ever. Or are you so confused that you have no idea what you’re supposedly fighting against? And loosing against? It’s pretty clear that your fundamentals are flawed there chief.
Re: Re:
Um, one of the first things that the internet was used for was creating chat rooms for people to chat and discuss things with each other, followed by fanfiction and gamefaqs.
Movies and music came along much, MUCH later than that, mostly due to technical restraints.
In fact, if not for the internet, I guarantee you that anime would not be anywhere near as popular in the West as it is today. Nevermind such anime like One Piece, while absolutely huge in Japan, it has a far more modest following in the West (still big though), however, most people wouldn’t bother with it outside of Japan if not for the internet scanning the manga and posting it up online.
Re: Re:
While we’re painting with broad brushes, let me offer this.
Content companies are grifters on society. Money spent on entertainment is money taken away from health care, retirement savings, and a host of other things with tangible benefits. Entertainment companies do nothing original, siphon billions of dollars away from industries which contribute to society in a tangible way.
Re: Re: Re:
Culture sharing companies are grifters on society.
FIFY
For the record, I don’t agree. Intangible benefits such as relationships and shared culture can’t be measured but they’re worth having.
Re: Re:
That’s funny, because I was on the internet back in the days before music or movies were there, and is was absolutely thriving. Did you fail to notice?
Re: Re: Re:
I was there also. In the 1980’s.
Yes, he failed to notice. Many people had no clue about the internet until about 1995 when it was way late. Most people who weren’t into computers still didn’t know about it until about 1997.
With his 14 year old mentality, it is entirely possible that he wasn’t born in a time when there wasn’t music and movies on the internet.
Re: Re: Re: The troll just fell off the
Even in the mid-90s Big Content was still nowhere to be seen. The tech and the bandwidth just wasn’t there. The original Tivo only had a 40G hard drive and that was a $1000 device. The current web we have today just wasn’t feasible.
I could actually do with less of the flim flam. It manages to gunk up even a modern broadband connection.
Re: Re:
The Internet was initially created to better facilitate communication of information (primarily research) between universities. So the PRIMARY purpose the Internet was created was to SHARE INFORMATION. And it served that purpose quite well long before ANY commercial entities much less media companies started using it to market or distribute their products. And it STILL serves that function quite well today in spite of the interference of the media companies.
Re: Re:
Let me guess…during the early years of the Internet, you were down in your parent’s basement playing your Atari?
Or was it too complicated for you way back then, and only now, after there’s a “simpler version of Windows” for you to use, are you finally seeing what it has to offer?
I remember the early days of the Internet. And it was just as useful then, despite the lack of content by the assholes you’re sworn to defend.
But then again, if dipshits like you didn’t troll this site, all we’d have is intelligent conversation going on.
Re: Re:
no wonder your business is failing if this is what you think of the greatest communication resource ever created.
Re: Re:
“No it didn’t.”
Techdirt troll: when you can’t argue facts, argue an easily debunked fiction. Then whine when people report you instead of arguing yet again why you’re lying.
Old content becomes irrelevant
As people age and newer generations are the major content consumers, older content becomes less interesting, less consumed, and eventually obscure.
New content doesn’t need the gatekeepers. Content can be sold directly to the consumers without the gatekeepers.
This is what the gatekeepers of old content fear most.
The content which gatekeepers keep such a tight hold of loses more of its value each day.
Tech is the best way to get that content to the fewer and fewer consumers who will want it as time passes. But they will not embrace it. Many old TV shoes are on Netflix, for example — but not other old TV shows.
One could argue that the gatekeepers get more new content into their gates each day. That is true, but I think more and more content creators are realizing they can do directly to the new distribution platforms. I think original shows by Netflix, Amazon, etc are just the tip of the iceberg (that will sink ships).
How many people under 30 watch TV shows from the 1960s? 1970s?
The issue is even larger and TechDirt has touched it many times. How many people under 30 read news in dead tree format?
No we aren’t. The only thing we are seeing is them finally getting around to accepting some parts of this round of tech advances. It’s no different than them accepting the advent of cassette recorders. Expect them to keep fighting the next round of tech advances like Goolge Glasses for quite some time. When the next tech advance after that comes, expect them to fight it as well if they’ve managed to survive.
Dodd again??
> So, let’s “review” copyright, but only if we’re looking to
> “strengthen” the rules (read: expand and extend). And let’s
> “reform” copyright, but only as long as nothing at all
> existing changes.
Didn’t TechDirt run a story the other day about the NY Times’s use of scare quotes? Y’know, that they used scare quotes because they had no idea what they were talking about?
Re: Re:
In this case the quotes are because Dodd’s definition of those words are not even close to how anyone else would use them.
“Reform” for example, to any sane person would mean ‘change to fix existing problems’, whereas he’s using it in a ‘shuffle some words around at most, and don’t change a thing’ sense.
Re: Re: Re:
Or in other words, there are “scary” quotes:
There are “satirical” quotes:
And then there are the quotes that ALTER REALITY ITSELF:
They’re the scariest quotes of all.
Re: Re:
Except that I’m pretty sure that Tim knows what he’s talking about.
I LOLed at the last part.
I seriously doubt it
Mr “Smiley” Dodd in Berlin’s film Festival has criticized heavily the European Copyright reform saying that “It will help to STEAL Hollywood masterpieces” 🙂
http://www.thewrap.com/piracy-hollywood-mpaa-chris-dodd-berlin
did anyone expect anything different from this guy? he could speak the truth if his job depended on it! oh, sorry. did i hear someone say that’s why he’s not in Congress any more?
I’m willing to not discuss copyright reform as long as chris dodd dies tomorrow.
RE:
back in the early days it was AWESOME, you could download a gif file over night(less than one MB file size too) and folks Talked TO each other, not AT each other.
life (online) was good till about 03, it’s been going downhill ever since…….
average_joe just hates, hates, hates it when due process is enforced.
Ah, so Dodd is using the “middle of the road” fallacy with a heaping helping of special pleading. What a fascinating mind he has!
Re: Re:
The man is a shill, and once a shill, always a shill. This is an effort at political sleight of hand where he pretends he’s doing us a favor while screwing us.
Re: Re: Re:
You’d have to be pretty stupid to believe he’s making any kind of compromise.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is, but the plan is to make us compromise, and by “compromise” I mean “bend over and grab our ankles.”
FTFY
Life +70 years is limited in terms of the entire history and future of the world, but it’s certainly not “limited” in the way we wish it was.
Re: FTFY
We know you wish copyright lasted forever, fucktard.
Dodd’s halfway point seems to be halfway between where copyright is now and where he wishes it would be.
Dodd is a four letter word.
Nuf said.
I don’t know what he prefers to stick his head in: the sand or his own ass.
Re: Re:
Personally I like to think his ass is full of sand, clawing and grinding away at the mess he calls a face.