Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
from the not-how-to-attract-the-next-generation dept
We’d heard this last week, but it’s now been confirmed that, due to significant lobbying pressure by the entertainment industry and (even more so) the US Chamber of Commerce, Derek Khanna, the Republican Study Committee staffer who penned the first thoughtful policy brief on copyright reform to come out of US government offices in a long time, has been let go from his job. There was expected to be some staff turnover in January, as the new RSC leadership took place, but several Republican members of Congress explicitly asked incoming RSC boss Steve Scalise not to retain Khanna in response to the copyright brief.
If this is how the “new” GOP expects to interest young people, it seems to be going about it exactly backwards. Khanna wrote a thought-provoking paper that expressed views that many people believe to be true — in a voice that is rarely heard in Congress. And, for that, he got fired. While the RSC and various copyright maximalists have been insisting that the paper was not properly vetted, we’ve had it confirmed that this is simply not true. The paper went through the standard procedure of any RSC brief, and was properly reviewed and vetted. It’s just that once lobbyists hit the phones to various members of Congress (friends of Hollywood, mainly), pressure was put on the RSC to retract the document, and to jettison Khanna.
This is not going to interest very many young people, when a thoughtful critique of policy that finally raises issues that concern many leads to the staffer in question getting the axe. Khanna, for his part, has been valiantly continuing the conversation via his Twitter feed, but various lobbyists are now ensuring that elected officials can safely stick their fingers back in their ears.
Filed Under: derek khanna, gop, hollywood, rsc, steve scalise
Comments on “Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain”
this shows the power the entertainment industries have over those in positions of power. it shows how much those in positions of power benefit from the entertainment industries. it shows the contempt the party has for anyone that has different views from the old farts and the ever greater contempt when the conflicting views are voiced. the last thing this shows, to me anyway, is the lack of balls the party has. the young are the future. the old are the past. if the old dont adapt, they will eventually become fossils, remembered for what they didn’t do, not what they did.
Re: Re:
While I don’t disagree with you I think this is also a case of a bold staffer being punished for being bold and acting without broad support.
Doesn’t matter if he’s right not not, he made the party have to scramble and they didn’t like that.
Re: Re: Re:
The bold staffer wrote the report that had to go through a process of approval before it was eligible to be published. The RSC approved the report then published it. Derek Khanna didn’t go rogue and publish it without approval.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
” Derek Khanna didn’t go rogue and publish it without approval.”
actually, he did.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
[citation needed]
Re: Re:
It is scary when politicians in this case gets to be the Hedy Lamarrs of politics. It is pretty obvious that the party has completely changed opinion of Khannas work. Why that is, seems to be 100% driven by people outside their own organisation. It doesn’t take much leap to get to the lobbyists/contributors making the decission. That is a scandal and even deeper than most people think since it shows a lack of debt in the debates going on in the parties (essentially it is bigotry).
Re: Re: Re:
It is scary when politicians in this case gets to be the Hedy Lamarrs of politics.
Hedy – or Hedly….?
Re: Re:
it shows the GOP and the RSC actually have common sense… and they don’t read TichDert, who knew…
Re: Re: Re:
Because common sense requires ignorance?
Re: Re:
Beware of the young, who have been taught by the old
I pledge allegiance to the Profit Margin of the United Corporations of America, and to the conglomerate for which it stands, one Plan under Copyright, indivisible, with profits and bribes for all.
Re: Re:
with profits and bribes for all those in power.
Fixed that for you….
Re: Re: Re:
with profits and bribes for all those in power.
That goes without saying…
Re: Re:
“I pledge allegiance to the Profit Margin of the United Corporations of America, and to the conglomerate for which it stands, one Plan under Copyright, indivisible, with profits and bribes for all.”
Exactly! And at least the RSC understands it’s time to look at Google and not let them buy the GOP and legislation! Couldn’t agree more!
Re: I featured your comment as my blog post title
If you are interested, please visit My WordPress Blog.
Watching the GOP trying to interest young people is like watching old people fuck.
Re: Re:
If Helen Mirren is in it, I might watch that.
"Free speech stops at the office door."
This is from an article by Nick Cohen which I thought would be of interest:
“In case you think I am BBC-baiting, I should add that at least the BBC allows challenges to its hierarchy. After the Savile scandal broke, George Entwistle had to go on the Today programme, whose presenters are never happier than when they can tear their managers apart on live radio. When Entwistle implied that the editor of Newsnight had no need to worry about his bosses circling over him like glassy-eyed crows, Evan Davis did what any sensible person would have done and burst out laughing.
Consider how rarely such laughter is heard. One of the least explored aspects of free speech in Western societies is the power of employers to enforce silence. Citizens can go on television ? on Newsnight, if you wish ? and denounce their politicians. The secret police do not come for them. Yet if they criticise their employers they can expect their managers to demote or fire them. After the great crash of 2007-08, we ought to understand the importance of plain talking in the workplace. Insiders at NatWest knew that Fred Goodwin was leading his bank to ruin. HBOS fired its own risk manager for saying that its habit of giving mortgages to anyone with a pulse was insanely risky. But it is still taken as a given that employees who speak out against public or private bureaucracies have no one to blame but themselves if their career suffers. Confusion persists between the interests of managers ? who want to protect their status by silencing criticism ? and the interests of organisations, and the shareholders or taxpayers who fund them, which need the freedom to scrutinise rent-seeking or incompetent managers.”
(http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4705/full)
Just imagine how many people inside the MPAA want to voice their concerns about the industry’s aggressive copyright attacks, but cannot… in case they lose their jobs. And not just those jobs in particular, but possibly any future job in that field of work due to black-balling. These people HAVE to exist, because it CANNOT be the case that 100% of MPAA workers are insane – some must surely see the virtues in tapping into the internet revolution, but are compelled into silence.
Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
“These people HAVE to exist, because it CANNOT be the case that 100% of MPAA workers are insane – some must surely see the virtues in tapping into the internet revolution, but are compelled into silence”
Maybe that’s what’s up with Out of the Blue. His insane comments are doing nothing for his side other than convincing other people to join the other side. Maybe he’s one of those who realize that the MPAA is insane, but he can’t say so directly for fear of losing his job. So he goes out and posts as much insanity as possible to discredit his own side without looking like he’s trying to.
Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
PS: your notion of being on a “side” is major flaw. To be clear: I regard both Pirate Mike’s “side” and the greedy MPAA as generally wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you admit that a bar is wrong? Or this Mike? This one? This one?
Choose which Mike you’re trying to get at!
Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
But that’s all you do, you endlessly fight for their side and their laws. You go out of your way to mock Techdirt and harass Mike specifically. If you were anywhere near logic you would at least attempt to debate things with said logic and evidence instead of posting personal attacks.
These two posts are the closest thing to logic that you’ve posted in a vary long time and they’re not vary logical in themselves.
Re: Re: Re:2 "Free speech stops at the office door."
I suspect OOTB’s apathy towards the unchanging system is what spurs on his aggressive attacks at Mike.
I guess that’s an easier way to inflate his ego than actually being constructive.
Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
“due to significant lobbying pressure by the entertainment industry”
OMG, OMG, OMG! It’s a CONSPIRACY! Quick, put on the Tin Foil Hats!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I only put on a tin-foil hat when it comes to coming up with WMGs, but I don’t know where to find some…
You’re not funny.
Would it be too much to ask that we have just one day free of examples of blatant government corruption?
Re: Re:
Yes.
He wrote a hilariously silly piece of garbage and embarrassed the RSC. And you’re surprised he’s being cut loose? uh, ok…
Re: Re:
I was going to ask where you stand on Copyright/Patent/Trademark reform but I se you just puked the evidence all over the floor!
I’m loving the fact that the Republicans had it blotted from history, one more nail in their coffin as they alienate even more people who may actually have voted for them.
Re: Re: Beware the party purges.
The GOP seems to be all about the accumulation of power anymore to the point where no dissent is tolerated. No one is interested in a diversity of opinion. If you deviate you are thrown under the bus. It doesn’t even matter if you are a presidential candidate and the ex majority leader.
It comes off as communist.
Don’t toe the line: get purged.
I can’t see how anyone that leans libertarian can’t be turned off by the kind of thing.
Re: Re: Re: Beware the party purges.
No, it comes off as authoritarian.
Re: Re: Re:
well Derek is all set to continue his career as a fiction writer – all is well.
Re: Re:
You misspelled “sensible, well-thought-out, and reasonable”.
Re: Re:
You mean as opposed to the hilarious pieces of trash that, though they wreak of shit and vomit, are allowed to stay the course? Like that? That and surprise that shit smelling trash is allowed to stay out of the can is in short supply. The surprise is that it took so long to throw out the fresh meat.
Feel free to tweet me at @dkhanna11.
And use #fixcopyright to continue the conversation.
-Derek
Re: Re:
Of course you would show up here. lol
Re: Re: Re:
It’s almost as if this thing called the “internet” is some kind of communicating connection machine? Huh. Nah, that can’t be it.
The internet is just a fad, right?
Re: Re: Re:
Of course you would show up here. lol
He’s a rock star to the “break the internet” crowd. Maybe Mike can help him sell t-shirts.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least he’s reaching someone, instead of having playground name-calling fights with a blog writer.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because fixing copyright would break the internet. Or do you refer to that thing from last year that has absolutely no bearing what so ever one what we were discussing here? Stay on course, Average Joke.
Re: Hats off to Derek.
You, sir, have my sincerest respect.
Re: Re:
Are you lost? Seems like you should be over here:
http://does.dc.gov
Re: Re: Re:
Are you lost? Seems like you should be over here:
http://does.dc.gov
I would guess that he’ll be able to find employment pretty damn quickly. Unlike you, his skills aren’t obsolete.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, maybe you should hire him, Mike.
Oh wait, you don’t pay people.
Hmmm. Maybe ask your boss at Google if he can get a position there. Y’know, lobbying for them in an official capacity instead of doing it under the table.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You know, it’s not a bad idea, but you had to add that “special” touch, don’t ya?
Then again, why bother? Look I do like Mr. Khanna maybe writing a few articles, but really? Do you have to go and say Mike works for Google? *smacks head* Why do I feel like our society is falling into stupidity faster than I fear?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Do you have to go and say Mike works for Google?
Yes I do. You see, once in a while it’s good to spread some truth around here.
Listed as an “employee”:
http://t.co/EfO7ZM7P
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
… Yeah, and really what you call “truth” is basically you wanting to attack him because he worked for a popular company.
Don’t really care.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
… Yeah, and really what you call “truth” is basically you wanting to attack him because he worked for a popular company.
I have not, and do not, work for Google. That commenter is simply lying. What he’s referring to is a Google disclosure that they give some money to CCIA (as do dozens of other companies) and we’ve done some work (all publicly disclosed) for CCIA at times. That work represented a tiny fraction of our income anyway.
Separately, Google has also sponsored some events we’ve hosted, again, for not very much money, though he hasn’t referred to that. Other companies have also sponsored our events, though our events don’t make us that much money to date.
There’s a weak attempt to suggest that I’m in Google’s pocket, despite the fact that I regularly criticize the company for practices I disagree with. The whole thing is silly and easily proved false.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I know that, Mike. I’ve known about that ever since you first posted about it. … Wait, if I know that, why did I say that? Hold on, I was going for sarcasm towards the last end of that… yeah I could’ve done a better job on that.
But yes I know that you don’t work for Google. I’m just saying to the AC that I don’t care that his statement is the truth. It’s false all the way. I do like to apologize for me saying that you work for them (at least I am honest about what I say).
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Listed as an “employee”:
Geeze. In your desire to lie and defame, you can’t even get the categorization right. I am not listed as an employee because I’ve never been an employee for Google, nor do I work (or have worked) for Google.
Keep trying though! It’s great to see you run around like this trying to distract in an attempt to avoid the actual point.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Hmm… No Google money, there. At least no proof of it. You’d have to find out if the CCIA’s commision was ordered before or after Google was a member, and then prove that Google was the majority investor in that study. Good luck.
In the future it behooves you to understand what you’re reading so you don’t look like a slimy, bald-faced liar.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’m his boss over at Google’s Imaginarium.
And to Mike, I say: keep up the good work.
Where is your rant now?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, at least there is one area where he can’t be accused of hypocrisy. He doesn’t believe and paying for content and doesn’t.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
*in* paying
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Look below.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It beats being a paid troll for the MAFIAA
Re: Re:
Hello! I’ll be much happy to follow you once I get outta work! (The stupid place’s Internet sucks terribly…)
I’ll also make sure to keep the word going! You’re an awesome person and I applaud your brilliance! Really, thank you very much!
Re: Re:
And Derek, likewise, feel free to tweet me @Crosbie.
However, I’d say we should be about fixing the law, i.e. abolishing copyright.
You cannot fix an instrument of injustice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man#Arguments
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect ? that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few… They… consequently are instruments of injustice …
Let me see if I understand this correctly: Mr. Khanna is being sacked for showing common sense and proving to have normal functional brains?
Well, at least he had the nerve to actually speak up. I hope his future will be good.
Re: Re:
Yes, once it was identified that he had two things that are antithetical to being a politician (common sense and a functioning brain) he was asked to leave and make room for someone who would fit in better…
Like a zombie or corpse
RSC is also on Twitter
It might not be a bad idea to let @RepublicanStudy know your opinions on the issue.
it’s now been confirmed that, due to significant lobbying pressure by the entertainment industry
No it hasn’t.
Mike Masnick just loves to make things up. Pull stuff right out of his ass with no reputable citations.
Re: Re:
Ah, you mean like the crap your asses put out about royalty payments and piracy? That type of stuff?
Re: Re:
Unlike all the AC’s who love to claim such things of course, they always back up their statements with solid, verifiable proof, and never try and rely on logical fallacies for their arguments…
Re: Re:
I’m going to try and recreate a comment I read here on Techdirt a while back, can’t remember who said it or the exact wording but here goes.
Let’s say you come home from work only to find your house is now a pile of smouldering debris. Standing outside the house, not far, is a man who is known to be an arsonist and who has vowed revenge on you for some reason. He looks like he’s been in a smoke-filled area. At his feet are a few bottles, labelled “High Flammable Liquid”. In his hand is a box of matches. Now, no-body saw this man commit the deed, but using logic, we can infer and say that it’s extremely unlikely, just short of impossibility, that this man is innocent.
Same thing goes for the entertainment industry. Sure, there’s no smoking bullet proof, but they have the means, motive and opportunity. They have the means, enormous influence over law-makers. Motive, to want any discussion of weakening copyright law squelched. Opportunity, the entertainment industry has tons of lobbyists.
That means that, barring evidence to the contrary, it’s pretty much a given that Hollywood was involved in this in at least some way. Or are you going to now say Hollywood wouldn’t have done anything about the brief, anything at all, to ensure that any talk of copyright reform would be silenced?
Re: Re: Apply the razor
What you are clutching at there is Occam’s Razor.
It basically states that the simplest explanation is probably correct.
Re: Re: Re: Apply the razor
Yeah, just wanted to “steal” someone else’s work without paying them. I’m very familiar with Occam’s Razor…I did watch the movie Contact after all 😉
Re: Re:
Anonymous internet commenter citing self as source?
Well, I’m convinced.
Re: Re:
Anonymous commenter with no citations…
… seems legit!
Re: Re: Re:
And still not a single reputable citation to back up Masnick’s bullshit assertion!!!
Simply shocking!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And still not a single reputable citation to back up Masnick’s bullshit assertion!!!
Simply shocking!!!
Dude, you just don’t get it. Mike isn’t a journalist. He’s just a guy that does journalism. Duh.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Hm, smells like jealousy.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Dude, you just don’t get it. Mike isn’t a journalist”
Well yeah, he’s said so himself many times. What was your point again?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Aren’t you the same ones who insist that internet users should create all their own content? So why don’t you go start your own website instead of coming on Techdirt? What’s wrong, too much work for you? I guess it’s tough when you don’t have the skills necessary to garner public support, so you need to rely upon someone else’s work.
Sound familiar? These are the exact same talking points you guys love to drudge out every chance you get.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because we can trust our local anonymous cowards to support that they see Mike spouting nonsense and we’re eating it up like candy!
Hooray for the AC!!
If you excuse me, I need to go hit my head against something hard.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You do that. Because apparently that’s less painful than you coming up with a reputable citation to Mike Masnick’s lie.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Uh-huh, sure. Um, do you mind telling me where he’s lying?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“it’s now been confirmed that, due to significant lobbying pressure by the entertainment industry”
That’s a lie.
And you’re pathetic for defending this douchebaggery simply because you’re addicted to content and don’t want to pay for your fix.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That’s a lie.
Not a lie.
Just a tip: as it appears you’re not aware, most Congressional offices employ staffers. Many of those staffers do not necessarily share the viewpoint of certain legacy industry lobbyists concerning copyright — even if their bosses toe the line. Some of those staffers might just possibly be willing to reach out and share information about who reached out to whom concerning a certain report.
🙂
Just saying. Information you may wish to pretend doesn’t exist, quite often does exist and may be shared.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Actually yes, I’m quite sure that there are a few office staffers there that are pirates, and might like to share their opinion with fellow like-minded individuals as yourself.
Big fucking deal.
Bottom line: You have no reputable citation to post, and you’re too much of a slimeball to admit it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Hang on, is that “opinion” bolded? I can’t tell… either way, you’re taking opinions over facts? Well… that certainly tells a lot about your character!
And tell you what, if you can’t provide anything to back up your claim that Mike is lying, I’m going to repeat asking you the same thing about it!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And you’re pathetic for defending this douchebaggery simply because you’re addicted to content and don’t want to pay for your fix.
Oh, and speaking of lies…
I don’t download any music/movies illegally and never have. Never. I buy CDs (still!) or buy stuff direct from artists or indie labels all the time. Just today I bought two albums from an indie label in NY and am enjoying listening to them as we speak. I also have a Spotify premium account.
I pay all the time and I do not infringe, because I don’t think it’s right.
But, you know, facts — not your strong suit.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
OK, if you see it as a lie, do you have something to back it up?
… And I’m not getting into a discussion about what I do about the stuff that I get. If you want to paint me as a freeloading pirate that can’t afford the stuff I can get for free online, go right ahead! If you want to believe that I’m some junkie that downloads items left to right without handing over my hard-earned money to every creator out there, go right ahead! If you want to believe that all of Mike’s articles is douchebaggery, go right ahead!
I know I can’t defend everyone because I don’t have the knowledge needed to really defend these people. At least I’m free to admit that I’m not suited to do that. But I do like to speak my mind and say what I believe needs to be said because I got my own opinion and I want to say it!
If you don’t like what I say, then fine! I don’t have to respond to your comments as well. Nobody is going to stop us.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“And you’re pathetic for defending this douchebaggery simply because you’re addicted to content and don’t want to pay for your fix.”
I bet you can’t even see the huge irony in complaining about Mike not citing sources, and then making a claim you have zero chance of providing any proof for.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know. Something really strange is going on here. The brigade hasn’t noticed that there’s no citation for Mike’s “confirmation” either.
Maybe it’s just my sociology studying, but the groupthink here is marvelous. I’m not completely unconvinced that this isn’t some sort of Petri dish to see just how many logical knots a group can tie itself into when fed fascist net-utopian propaganda. This place is very much like an alternate version of Fox News; it even has its own Tea Party in the rabid group of zealots like DH, Marcus/Leigh, Heph, PaulT, and a cluster of other misguided minions.
They think they fight for the internet, but what they’re buying into is the belief that economics is a science, which it’s not. It’s a value system. It’s a value system that has been tearing the globe apart for more than 30 years. Wall St. and Silicon Valley are the same thing now; Wall St. invested in and tore apart the land; then they invested in and tore apart the global labor market; and now they’re investing in and tearing apart “computers” and turning the internet into something very different from the working market that it could be just so that the key big players in Tech can keep their massive slice of pie at the expense of the rest of humanity.
And the idiots here are blaming Hollywood?! You can see they’re serious in this belief, the people here honestly think that Hollywood has greater control of government than the oil companies, than Wall St., than the pharmaceuticals, than the food congolmerates, than Google, Microsoft, Apple, and the rest of the MASSIVE companies that make up the “tech sector” (a Wall St. designation, it should be pointed out). They gobble up reports from conservative think tanks on a daily basis, and never connect the dots. “It’s those big bad millionaires in Hollywood, not the BILLIONARES who run everything else that are wrecking everything!”
Watching the foundation crack and crumble is going to be interesting. I hope all the suffering that follows will be worth that rip of Game of Thrones.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Watching the foundation crack and crumble is going to be interesting. I hope all the suffering that follows will be worth that rip of Game of Thrones.”
What suffering?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
When you have corporations that can pseudo-legally tell the government to go after children and grandmothers you’d be certain there’s a fuckton of sway that Hollywood has over the government.
Chris Dodd publicly threatend to stop sponsoring people for not passing SOPA. Are you blind as well as stupid?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, when their collection agencies employ known and convicted fraudsters in the US and elsewhere, then I’;d say that there’s a problem.
Moreover, I know that economics is not a science. Neither is Sociology. And groupthink isn’t a sociological phenomenon: it’s a psychological phenomenon. Just because it happens in a social context doees NOT mean that sociological models apply.
And we don’t blame Hollywood, per se – we blame the trade unions (sorry, “trade organisations”) that keep trying to funnel money from imaginary uses and into their pockets constantly.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And still not a single reputable citation to back up Masnick’s bullshit assertion!!!
Simply shocking!!!
If Mike had no credibility, your masters wouldn’t be paying you to dilute the discussion here with your nonsense. Be thankful or fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Nobody pays me to post here or express my opinions anywhere else.
I’m simply disgusted by what a lying sociopath Mike Masnick is and have every intention of making sure people know the truth.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Nobody pays me to post here or express my opinions anywhere else.
I’m simply disgusted by what a lying sociopath Mike Masnick is and have every intention of making sure people know the truth.
You have the truth? Thank god! Do enlighten us, but make sure your “truth” is served without citation and with a chock full of ad-homs.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Apparently no one pays you to look up the true definition of sociopath either.
Unless, you pay yourself in…you know, pats on the back.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You know that just makes it worse, right? If you’re going to come here every day to spit venom and lie, you should at least be getting a few bucks for it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And still not a single reputable citation to back up Masnick’s bullshit assertion!!!
You know what happened. I know what happened. Multiple publications have confirmed the same thing, which we also heard directly from multiple primary sources. He was pushed out, in large part after lobbyists reached out to key RSC members, mainly Marsha Blackburn, and complained about the report. Since she’s been a long term water-carrier for the RIAA… look what happened next.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I don’t want your bullshit opinion, Masnick.
Post a reputable citation or STFU.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Mike might STFU if you’re willing to pay the 100 million dollar cost. That’s all it costs. Such a paltry sum.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Personally I agree. All you need is to put on a few songs somewhere, have a couple people download them and voila! They’re worth a kajillion bucks in statutory damage!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Post a reputable citation or STFU.
Oh, the irony. It hurts.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Irony? You mean in how I posted a reputable citation for your employment by Google, and you’ve posted absolutely zero reputable citations that “the entertainment industry” was responsible for getting that childish pirate term paper pulled from the RSC site? That kind of irony?
Post a reputable citation, Masnick, or STFU.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“You mean in how I posted a reputable citation for your employment by Google…”
Ah, there’s your problem. You’ve confused ‘reputable citation’ with ‘crazy, made-up idea’. No wonder you’re confused.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Wait, “reputable?” HA! That’s a laugh! From what I can recall, he. Did. NOT. WORK! FOR! GOOGLE! Perhaps you need to go back to school and learn reading comprehension because that report didn’t listed Mike as an employee to Google, no will he ever be. That paper you cite as evidence for him working for Google… LOOK AT IT AGAIN!
And what’s with the quotations on “entertainment industry?” I… *growls* I can’t think of anything to describe this level of stupidity. It’s driving me mad trying to come up with an response to say “YOU’RE BLIND!”
And you’re an idiot for trying to tell Mike to shut up on his own site. At least he has a life outside of this, even I do! I don’t sit in front of a computer hitting the refresh button and trying to make a grown man look bad because his viewpoints don’t match up to yours. As I told Blue a couple times already: GET. A. LIFE!!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You’re welcome.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-sides-with-mickey-mouse-on-copyright-reform/article/2515183#.UMC9zpPjlui
“The reason, according to two Republicans within the RSC: angry objections from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, whose district abuts Nashville, Tenn. In winning a fifth term earlier in the month, Blackburn received more money from the music industry than any other Republican congressional candidate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”
“Lobbyists for the music and movie industries also called the RSC to express disapproval, according to Republicans involved.”
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Game, set and match. Checkmate. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
LOL.
This is once again an opinion piece by another pirate-type zealot; one who writes for a notoriously zealot-based publication.
It reads like Masnick wrote it himself.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
LOL.
This is once again an opinion piece by another pirate-type zealot; one who writes for a notoriously zealot-based publication.
It reads like Masnick wrote it himself.
Translation: Despite citations, evidence and reality, nothing anyone says will change me from my conviction that Masnick must be lying, because he said something that upsets my fragile ego.
Even when MULTIPLE staffers familiar with what happened have said this is the case, you’re still denying it? Incredible.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You said the “the entertainment industry” got it pulled.
You now are trying to tell me that supposedly because a few staffers (that you infer are pirate types) suggest it was big evil Hollywood that got it pulled that I’m supposed to believe you?
That’s not a citation, you asshat.
You refuse to consider the fact that the paper got pulled because it was garbage. It is you that have blinders on.
If Blackburn complained, good for her. It’s a garbage paper. And she’s from Tennessee, not Hollywood.
The fact is, most of the members of the RSC likely saw what a joke this paper was for any business that doesn’t make it’s money as a content parasite, and got it pulled.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Two words for you: In denial
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Three words for you: Fuck off, Freetard.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
People could buy up the entire record store and you and your ilk will still call these customers freetards.
Four words for you: No, you fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Adding a fifth: turducken.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Your angry lashing out simply adds weight to the impression that you know Mike’s right, but must deny, deny, deny no matter what, because you have a vested interest in the status quo. Your emotions betray you; you should learn to control them.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
The fact is, most of the members of the RSC likely saw what a joke this paper was for any business that doesn’t make it’s money as a content parasite, and got it pulled.
In your own words:
“Post a reputable citation or STFU.”
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Nice blinders you have there. Where can I get a set like that?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
To be that blind, you either need to poke your eyes out with an icepick, or have your head up the ass of a lobbyist.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Hm, this sounds like the dumb shit who tried to tell us his friend worked for an ISP and they had technology capable of bypassing VPN.
Though he never did provide any citations of this so-called technology.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Hey, you take that back! Just because he has an ape with an eyepatch (which, again, awesome), that doesn’t make him a pirate or a zealot!
And I thought you wanted opinions instead of facts? Hypocrite?
*takes closer look* … No, I don’t see it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Excuse me…
*starts laughing like a hyena*
Ah… now then, what do you want Mike to do again?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Next Election the GOP will lose even more Voters.And they will just keep losing them.
And I have read enough of this Story from other News Sites to know it is a true tale.
GOP will do anything to protect their Corporate Masters.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When are you going to Ars Technica to call their assertion bullshit, too? Or is your hatred for “piracy apologists” reserved for Masnick? Does he alone make your dick sad or something?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
i think mike makes his dick happy thats why he keeps posting on these forums, frakin weirdo
Maybe...
Maybe Khanna should start thinking of getting into politics. He’s obviously shown he can think with more than half a brain.
Re: Maybe...
It’s important to note that even for politicians that can’t think with any part of their brain, that can be successfull as long as they listen to someone smarter than them, and not kick them out of the room.
Re: Re: Maybe...
Yes, spin is a tool. I see mr. Khanna as being in a position where economic support will be hard to get if he wanted to run. Individual donors are rather scarce without sufficient fundraisers, which again is scarce without funds. It is no coincident that more than half the people in congress are in the top 0.05% of wealth in the world and above 5 times the limit of the 1% wealthiest in USA. Why dont I take more than half? Well, I havent got the data to back up that claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/243625-the-hills-2012-50-wealthiest-in-congress
Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
I see mr. Khanna as being in a position where economic support will be hard to get if he wanted to run.
Probably true using the traditional political fundraising.
But I still wonder if someone couldn’t crowdfund a run at office with a completely anonymous donation system. It would remove the cronyism part since the candidate wouldn’t actually know where the money came from and wouldn’t be beholden to the biggest donors. I realize that this is probably not feasible with current election funding laws, but it would be an interesting experiment.
Re: Re: Re:2 Maybe...
But I still wonder if someone couldn’t crowdfund a run at office with a completely anonymous donation system. It would remove the cronyism part since the candidate wouldn’t actually know where the money came from and wouldn’t be beholden to the biggest donors. I realize that this is probably not feasible with current election funding laws, but it would be an interesting experiment.
Even if you can solve the fundraising issue, you’ve still got to be in a district where you can be elected. Your politics need to mesh at least somewhat with voters during the primary and then the general election.
Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe...
Your politics need to mesh at least somewhat with voters during the primary and then the general election.
Right. But if you combine that with an idea I had a year or so ago where the the elected representative used some sort of online poll (of only their constituents) to tell them how to vote on each bill you would automatically have your politics align with your voters.
Re: Re: Re:4 Maybe...
Right. But if you combine that with an idea I had a year or so ago where the the elected representative used some sort of online poll (of only their constituents) to tell them how to vote on each bill you would automatically have your politics align with your voters.
Would we need parties at all, then? Or even representatives? Everything could be done with an online vote.
What I’d like to see is some sort of game program so that people could see what would happen with different policy scenarios. I realize this modeling is only as accurate as the model, but the current system (where everyone lobbies for their particular cause without factoring in how to deal with budgetary constraints, policies that act at cross purposes with each other, and so on) seems unable to deal with the complexities of modern life and global interconnectedness.
Re: Maybe...
Pardon me but I believe that half a brain or better is an immediate disqualification.
Re: Maybe...
sounds like he has not left politics, he has found an issue that fits into his own personal ethis, free market economic philosophy with dislike of monopolies. he is keeping in the game with twitter.
Re: Re: Maybe...
sounds like he has not left politics, he has found an issue that fits into his own personal ethis, free market economic philosophy with dislike of monopolies. he is keeping in the game with twitter.
The big test will be 3D printing. If one is going to revise copyright laws, it should be done with 3D printing in mind and the fact that 3D printing has the potential to disrupt many traditional industries (which I hope it does).
Painting Hollywood as the enemy overlooks the bigger issues to come.
Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Except that the reason we have bigger issues to come is because Hollywood (et al.) doesn’t need any paint.
Re: Re: Re:2 Maybe...
Except that the reason we have bigger issues to come is because Hollywood (et al.) doesn’t need any paint.
I don’t get what you mean.
I see 3D printing affecting many industries that produce, sell, and transport actual objects. The sophistication of 3D printers is rapidly expanding.
I was reading that you can’t copyright a pattern, so perhaps that means files of printing instructions won’t fall under copyright, but I’m not sure if that will be the case.
Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe...
If you couldn’t copyright a pattern, we wouldn’t have copyright. Patterns are the only things we can copyright as far as I know..
Anyway, intructions for 3d printers are no different from instructions for other hardware as far as I can tell. I don’t know why they would be treated differently.
Re: Re: Re:4 Maybe...
This is what I saw yesterday.
Copyright Law – Patterns
But I don’t know the extent to which something like this would hold up in terms of 3D printing. I do expect that any industry that begins to lose business because people are sharing patterns and printing stuff on their own rather paying others for it will look for loopholes.
I was just reading that that there is now a material that can be used in 3D printers to make electrical circuits (I’d have to pull the article to get the actual details). I really expect entire supply chains will be disrupted in time. Anyone who tackles copyright needs to look way beyond the entertainment and publishing industries.
Re: Re: Re:5 Maybe...
PLOS ONE: A Simple, Low-Cost Conductive Composite Material for 3D Printing of Electronic Sensors
Re: Re: Re:5 Maybe...
U.S. Copyright Office: Useful Articles
Also see 17 U.S.C. ? 101.
Re: Re: Re:6 Maybe...
Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features.
Thanks.
Yes, copyright is going to get bigger, messier, and involve a lot more industries than entertainment and publishing. Whatever is going to happen in terms of entertainment/publishing is already happening and working itself out in one way or another.
But copyright as it pertains to supply chain issues is going to involve lots of people who think it doesn’t involve their jobs or their companies. When that article yesterday said copyright should revert back to charts, maps, and books, I thought, “Yes, sure, that either opens up or doesn’t open up a lot of stuff depending on what you mean by ‘charts.’ Have fun with that.”
how dare you speak truth to power? Throwing people under the bus for not toeing the party line pretty well sums up their attitude toward and relationship with reality though.
Re:
Killing messengers with bad news has been statistically proven to lower the amount of messengers bringing bad news.
Re: Re:
“Why didn’t anyone tell me the Russians were in Berlin?”
"Free speech stops at the office door."
“Maybe that’s what’s up with Out of the Blue.” — Since nothing worth railing at here, I’ll respond to yours: THOUGHT I’d made clear over time that I’m NOT at all supporting the MPAA on their too greedy of practices such as amount they get adn extending copyright to forever, and that I want to tax the hell out of the essentially unearned income of both executives and artists, BUT on the point of MPAA being right that copyright is necessary and good, I’m forced to side with them by logic and principle, besides that Mike doesn’t have a workable alternative. — I focus on the morality of who owns the creations, and SURELY that’s enough to separate me from both Mike and the MPAA!
Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
Ootb, logic and principle, are three concepts that don’t mix. Ever.
Also, congratulations and thank you. You didn’t end with that stupid Streisand Effect link.
Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
Yeah… considering all the talk you’ve been saying the past few weeks, I can guess which side you’re on…
But with everything, your spelling is awesome!
So, you want to focus on the morality of who owns creations? Hey Blue, focus on morality! I’m a Creator, so give a crap about me! I surely don’t give a crap that you’re following me!
Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
You don’t focus on those things at all. What you focus on is Mike, being as insulting and rabid as possible, and taking the opposite stance of anything that’s said here just because it’s said here.
Regardless of that, though, it certainly wouldn’t be enough to separate you from both Mike and the MPAA. Both are also very concerned about the morality of ownership and talk about the issue quite often.
Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
If you’re not supporting the RIAA and MPAA this is the first ever time I’m hearing it.
What I do know is that for your loathing of corporations, you’ve never criticised the blatant oversight or overreach by those protectionist organisations.
Logic and principle, my obese posterior.
As usual, a sane piece of writing gets trashed in favor of the political bribe and corruption. Damn shame good sense isn’t applied all the time to those that make the laws.
If there is anything good in that, it’s a sign of exactly why heads need to roll in Washington, replacing corrupt politicians with some that haven’t quite been tainted yet.
Once again it is demonstrated what is wrong with the republican party. In two years the voters will speak again. They just barely kept the majority of the house seats this time and made no inroads into the presidency nor the senate. Time will not be kind to those who can not appeal to all voters for the vote.
I’d say it’s about time to kick out the source of the do nothing congress.
Re: The Nixon Principle
That’s assuming that the Republican constituents actually see things that way. They’re probably all too busy listening to Rush to actually pay attention to issues that aren’t religious busybody nonsense.
These are hicks that are being fed class warfare propaganda and eating it up. One elitist snob told them that another set of elitist snobs looks down on them and wants to run their lives.
Until they get over that and religious meddling, most Republican voters won’t be interested in real issues.
But why was he there in the first place?
Since RSC paper came out, I’ve been asking about the politics behind it.
And as I read about Khanna, I was wondering what appealed to him about the Republican Party. I don’t see it as a young person’s party, for many many reasons. As I have written before, I don’t think pushing for copyright revision would be enough in itself to win new young voters. A lot of other issues would need to be addressed too.
Re: But why was he there in the first place?
if you really want to get into politics you should look around at the going parties and join one, generally it seams like a good fit at the time. time tells you the truth, and it might turn out you need to join a different party, or new party, no shame, personal views evolve.
Re: Re: But why was he there in the first place?
Why join a party at all?
Re: Re: Re: But why was he there in the first place?
Why join a party at all?
If a party is out of sync with your beliefs, why that one?
Again, getting back to the politics of all of this. I was surprised that the paper was released when it was and by the group that it was, so I guess I’m not surprised that it was pulled and that Khanna lost his job.
While copyright reform might be a libertarian issue (it’s definitely a copyleft issue), I’ve never thought of it as a conservative Republican issue.
Re: But why was he there in the first place?
I think maybe it’s time to re-found the Whig party.
Re: The Nixon Principle, plus neocons.
If you ignore what Republicans do in practice, and just listen to their rhetoric and political philosophy they don’t sound all bad. The problem comes when they form unholy alliances with religious organizations and pander to the most base fears of rural white voters.
Also somewhere along the lines they got confused about what certain terms mean like “political conservative”.
Re: Re: The Nixon Principle, plus neocons.
Also somewhere along the lines they got confused about what certain terms mean like “political conservative”.
I’m very much in favor of sustainability, which puts me on the left of many issues. What’s interesting is that the sustainability movement has a lot in common with “traditional” conservative values. There’s support of localization, of being self-reliant (e.g., growing your own food, generating your own energy and getting off-grid), etc. But I have an old high school friend who apparently is a Tea Party type and she puts up links to the most outrageous conspiracy stuff. How, for example, bike paths are a plot by the UN/communists to take over America.
The whole anti-science bias of many of today’s conservatives doesn’t work for me, either. You can’t ignore or refuse to publish research just because you don’t like the results. Science evolves, so what we know now might be refuted in the future, but you have to get the info out there in order to pull it apart and test and retest.
The Republicans are dead like the Whigs. The Tea Party will rise and the second American Revolution will take place in the next 20 years.
Re: Re:
So you’re predicting that a fascist party is going to overthrow the government, then?
Re:Re
C’mon for Pete’s Sake, how many clones are there of Bob, O_O_T_B,TAM and the other delusional trolls? As of late when I read the articles here all I see are morons who refuse to take their meds unless it’s the kool-aid that their corporate masters gladly pass around.
I know Mike Masnick from this forum only and I happen to agree with his stance on most things. I find that like most name calling fools those that do the most are the ones guilty of doing exactly what they are pointing the finger at others for.
They have the biggest collections of porn, both adult and kiddie, the most pirated music and movies, and they pretend to be so bloody self-righteous and pompous that it’s a wonder their heads don’t explode from all the BS they
espouse each time they open their mouths.
They try to justify their existence by screaming bloody blue murder if someone disagrees with them and their skewed version of reality.
Mayhap it’s time their nannies and mommies came and gave them all a good spanking and send them to bed with no supper as well as making sure that the parental controls on the computers are working with passwords that our wee trolls can’t guess.
Who says movies don't imitate life:
Senator Roarke:
Power don’t come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin’ the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain’t true, you’ve got ’em by the balls.
-Truer words were probably never scripted.
Looks like they’re filing ‘denial’ right next to their binders full of women.
Here's a good reason to get rid of IP laws and get voter support for it
How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes – Business Insider: “The investigation explains that, to exploit the loophole, a company will ‘sell’ their intellectual property rights to a foreign, controlled company in a tax shelter.”
I recommend nuking this entire comment thread. Trolls dilute value.
Re: Re:
I dunno. The best the whateverAA seem to be able to get hold of is three complete loons who spew lies and angry filth without actually making any points, or backing up any of their assertions.
They almost serve a purpose by showing how worthless they are.
At least I won’t have to consider switching parties anymore.