Hollywood Unions: Now That You Lying Hacking Thieves Have Won, Can We Set A New Conciliatory Tone?
from the which-lies dept
The big Hollywood unions who supported SOPA and PIPA (even as many of their own members disagreed) have finally come out with their own statement on the whole PIPA/SOPA thing, and like the other supporters we’ve seen, it too, is totally tone deaf to what happened. Rather than recognizing the problems of the bill, it’s obnoxious and condescending:
We recognize that we are currently part of a complex and important debate about the future, not just of the Internet but also of creativity, the American economy, free expression, and a civil society. We believe that the light should be being shined on every aspect of this discussion and on all of those who have a stake in it. We believe we should discuss what an unregulated ‘free’ Internet means for the future of content, just as we should also discuss the importance of an open Internet.
We welcome this debate. We hope a new tone can be set and it is not one that turns our advocacy for this legislation into an implication that we promote censorship. Our commitment to the First Amendment is decades old and long established – it is a matter of public record from long before the word ‘Internet’ was part of anyone’s vocabulary. If one truly embraces free expression, they do not take down the Library of Congress websites, the very symbol of our country’s belief in knowledge and learning. We would hope a new tone can be set that does not pit the creativity and innovation of our directors, actors, performers, craftspeople, and technicians against those innovators in other industries. We hope a new tone can be set that does not include website attacks, blacklists, blackouts, and lies. We believe an Internet that does not allow outright stealing has to be the Internet of the future or all the promises it holds will be unrealized.
First of all, the internet is not “unregulated” — no matter how many times they insist it is. Second, given what we saw with Megaupload, it’s pretty ridiculous to think that the US cannot (and does not) currently have the tools to go after foreign sites (in fact, there is some evidence that it has too many tools with too much power). But, really, what strikes me as ridiculous about this statement is that it attacks everyone whose opinion they totally ignored for over a year — and then pretends that it wants to set a conciliatory tone? If you want “a new tone” to take place, let’s start with you guys not calling people who raised legitimate concerns liars.
More importantly, if we’re going to talk about “lies,” let’s start with the claims of “losses” that have widely been debunked, but which were used to put forth this legislation. Let’s talk about the lies about the legislation being “narrowly targeted” when pretty much every legal analysis worried about its broad definitions. Let’s talk about the lies that the legislation would not censor free speech — when even the big First Amendment lawyer you presented to support this bill admitted that protected speech would be taken down under these laws.
Don’t accuse others of lying when your side has a much bigger, much longer, much more detailed history of lying. Did some of those against the bills misunderstand them and present false information? Yes. But these are people who aren’t used to reading legislation and may have missed key points. On the side of you and your lobbyists, you knew exactly what you were doing. I find that a lot more pernicious.
Filed Under: conciliatory, hollywood, pipa, protect ip, sopa, unions
Companies: dga
Comments on “Hollywood Unions: Now That You Lying Hacking Thieves Have Won, Can We Set A New Conciliatory Tone?”
Is it just me....
… or did anyone else read “We hope a new tone can be set that does not include website attacks, blacklists, blackouts, and lies” and immediately think:
Ok. You first.
Re: Is it just me....
LOL, that’s totally what I thought!
Re: Is it just me....
Close, I misread it as “We hope a new tone can be set that does not include your voice.”
Re: Re: Is it just me....
what do you mean ‘MISread’?
Re: Is it just me....
LOL !!!
Frakken lying Hollywood
Re: Is it just me....
damn thats what I was coming to say:
“We hope a new tone can be set that does not include website attacks, blacklists, blackouts, and lies. (from your side, we are gonna keep doing what we do)” ftfy
Re: Is it just me....
Seriously. No blackouts? http://www.megaupload.com.
Re: Is it just me....
It was more like ‘Sure, as soon as you are ready’, but that’s close enough.
Be Careful Mike
Using big words like “pernicious” might get you in trouble. They might accuse you of pirating content from the big dictionary industry. That certainly would not set a good tone for all those new conversations they want. They totally want to have a real discussion with all parties involved. Have you written your check to Chris Dodd yet?
/sarc
Civil civilians
Let the shills get the puppet government to keep pushing the citizens and we’ll see what happens when the citizens run out of ‘Civil’ for their civil resistance.
Pack up...
The message they should have gotten, and refuse to acknowledge, is:
“Pack it up guys, your con-man days are over, and you better get out of town before the torches and pitchforks take on a physical form.”
But they seem to think they can keep it up a little longer.
Got a deal for you
We can start talking about what you want when you get rid of “Hollywood Accounting”. After all, real accounting is better for the artists.
Deal?
“We hope a new tone can be set and it is not one that turns our advocacy for [censorship] legislation into an implication that we promote censorship.”
btw, is Disney sponsering techdirt now? Lol, Theres a Disney add on my page 🙂
Re: Re:
That is the one true definition of Irony.
Re: Re:
There’s ads on Techdirt?
Re: Re: Re:
Umm.. yeah unless you block them out or something… Mike did a big post about how they were changing the types of ads and trying out different things and yadayada… Where were you? 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was clearly under a rock.
/runs off to whitelist techdirt.
Re: Re:
I found it a particularly interesting juxtaposition on one of the earlier posts:
http://i.imgur.com/jL2Go.png
Of course they are suffering.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bca9a600-45e3-11e1-9592-00144feabdc0.html
Re: Re:
lol:
“She said: ?I often wish instead of hysterical resisting, our opponents would come forward with some constructive suggestions. It?s always ?no, no, no?.?”
Constructive critism: stop trying to run the country and start running your business.
Re: Re: Re:
But whenever we come up with constructive suggestions, they always ignore it. Fuck them, we don’t need them anyway.
Day #24 of my big media cold turkey detox. (no dvds, or cds from the major labels and moviehouses for the rest of the year, nor any downloads of the same.)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are easy… It’s Television I have a hard time getting out of our household.. I would be willing myself, but convincing the family is tough for some reason.
So, do you think boycotters count as pirates or rogues in their stats?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Watch what you already licensed or borrow/exchange.
Techdirt = aiding and abetting criminals.
Re: Re:
D+ – I KNOW you can do better.
Re: Re:
Face it, as a group, your side is far better at aiding and abetting criminals. Keeping track of the # of sigs needed to get a statement about Mr. Dodd is entertaining.
Your business’s inability to adapt without stomping on the rest of the people’s rights and bribing Congresscritters is hardly the moral ground.
So Union Reps, start fixing the problem and stop depending on people like Mr. Dodd (Who do nothing but make you look WORSE.) to fix it for you.
Re: Re:
MPAA = criminals
Re: Re:
Techdirt = aiding and abetting criminals.
How about these:
Malcolm Hume = dumbass
or
MPAA = bribing members of Congress = felony.
Re: Re: Re:
MPAA = Milking Public Artistic Abilities
Re: Re:
“Techdirt = aiding and abetting criminals.”
How is TechDirt aiding and abetting Disney, Viacom, etc., boy?
Re: Re: Re:
They are running ads for Disney! 🙂
Re: Re:
Okay, let’s talk about aiding and abetting, shall we?
Let’s start with a funny man calle Charlie Sheen, whose salary was just shy of $18m before he got fired. That money went directly to drug dealers (because of the War on Drugs) and prostitutes (also because of the War on Drugs, amongst other things).
Next, we’ll move on to Eminem, whose digital “sales” werte license, except when it came to paying royalties, where it was actual sales. That is called “Breach of contract”, which result in a civil suit which Eminem won and was awarded damages equal to the royalties he was “rightfully” entitled to under the terms of hisd contracts.
Thirdly, we have former Senator Chris Dodd, who has been involved in three separate allegations of outright corruption beyond what was already in place at the time of his being a Senator.
Fourthly, we have the flourishing gang trade in LA, which reaults from a clusterfuck of bad circumstances caused by lobbying for lower corporate taxes in the state of California. The MPAA aren’t paying their fair share to , well, anyone, and are keeping all the money they can for tthemselves, whilst stiffing everyone else.
So you tell me, who are the real criminals?
Re: Re: Re:
But you can never be a criminal so long as you pay a share to the government representatives. The new mafiaa learned their lesson from Capone. They are being careful to change each law before breaking it. As long as they have lobbyists they can’t be criminals, can they?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt really needs a Scary True button!
Re: Re:
before attempting to secure the moral high ground, first ensure your enemy is not in possession of orbital weaponry.
You know what I believe?
offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved
check
abominable; disgusting; repulsive
check
I believe that I should be getting my obscenity from good ole Larry. I miss that world.
So, tell us honestly, Mike, you’ll never sit down at any table to work on any sort of solution. Right?
Re: Re:
So, tell us honestly, Anonymous Coward, you’ll actually invite Mike, the tech community and the public to sit down at any table to work on any sort of solution (instead of lying later on that you did invite them, when you clearly didn’t). Right?
Re: Re: Re:
Oh please.
Masnick pretends lies were not the method of choice to fearmonger the net about SOPA, then goes right ahead and lies again when he says losses have been “debunked”
Employment stats have not been “debunked”.
Revenue stats have not been “debunked”.
Mike Masnick is not looking for a solution.
He is the premier piracy apologist on the net and a famous gigantic liar. He came in very handy when extreme lying became Google’s preferred MO for fighting SOPA.
Mass, unchecked piracy is part of Mike Masnick’s boneheaded business model, and he will fight to save it no matter how futile his efforts ultimately will be.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A solution has been provided: don’t treat everyone else like criminals. It’s seriously not that hard. Valve got it. Drake got it. Notch got it.
But a suit paid a quarter of a million a year plus bonuses can’t? Pull the other one, it’s got truth on it, and it’s coming to BEAT YOU DOWN.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Black is White, up is Down. So you don’t like Mike’s solutions. Make your own, just do it within the law. We are sick of rewrites.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
i believe Weird Al Yankovic(sp?) has a song about this:
“Everything you know is wrong.”
i would link to a youtube video but youtube apparently hates me more than usual today.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm…I wonder how long it’ll take before a troll calls Mike a child pornographer? By now, trolls must have learned that making stupid posts like the one above no longer work, since each statement is 100% false and have themselves been debunked so many times.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your lies are so pathetic, I marked you funny.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is the premier piracy apologist on the net…
Holy crap this is getting annoying.
Why don’t you take some time and go look up the definitions of “apologist” and “realist”. Once you have figured out that those two words are not interchangeable come on back to the adults table where the grownups are having a discussion.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
He can’t. Either he’s too stupid to understand the actual points being raised, or his paycheck depends on him not understanding. He’s been here too long, tilting at windmills and building strawmen, for it to be anything else.
Re: Re:
1) It’s pathetic to ask others to come up for solutions to save your company just because you have to work within the law rather than write your own.
2) If you follow Mike actually already does this anyway before anyone asks. There have been many potential solutions brought up on this site, and he will tell them to anyone who will listen 🙂
Re: Re:
So, tell us honestly, Mike, you’ll never sit down at any table to work on any sort of solution. Right?
This would be akin to the buggy whip industry asking Popular Mechanics (if they were around then) for solutions to their problems 100 years ago. Pathetic. How about trying to solve your own problems?
Re: Re:
So, tell us honestly, Mike, you’ll never sit down at any table to work on any sort of solution. Right?
Seems to me that there would need to be a problem defined first and then you can begin to work towards a solution.
Prove that increased enforcement of copyright laws are needed. Prove it with real facts and figures, not just with vapid hand waving and crying “But, but Piracy!”. Privacy and free speech rights are extremely important, and anytime anyone wishes to limit them, for any reason, there needs to be absolute proof that the gain to society outweighs the loss of individual liberties.
Re: Re: Seriously?
I’m just gonna throw this out there, but isn’t there something to be said about the fact that stealing or pirating is a problem, regardless of the degree? I’m not saying that SOPA and PIPA are the correct responses, but don’t try to tell me that downloading a movie rather then paying to see/own it is perfectly exceptable behaviour.
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
That’s the problem with imagining content as property. Times have changed, there is no marginal cost for content distribution anymore so you to leverage content in a way that makes you money. Netflix and others are proving there is a business model which works. They compete with piracy by providing a better service.
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
First you need to determine how many people bought it and then downloaded it so they would have it in a format that was useful to them.
Not sure why everyone has to do their own ripping and converting when it has already been done.
Part of the problem is the industries do not wish to clarify what you “bought” and what you have “licensed.”
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
I’m just gonna throw this out there, but isn’t there something to be said about the fact that stealing or pirating is a problem, regardless of the degree? I’m not saying that SOPA and PIPA are the correct responses, but don’t try to tell me that downloading a movie rather then paying to see/own it is perfectly exceptable behaviour.
Honestly, I really don’t know.
What you are describing is a moral issue. Moral issues are always hard legislate due to their nature. What I view as immoral you may find acceptable and vice versa. Think about Prohibition. That was a moral law (ie: “Alcohol is evil, ban all alcohol”) and it ended up being repealed because most everyone ignored the law.
But still, my original point stands, if the rights owners are asking for increased enforcement that possibly may limit my personal liberties, shouldn’t the burden to prove the necessity of such actions fall to them?
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
Good question. I do not necessarily have any sort of insightful answer for you but your question is exactly one stop short of present reality. Essentially, “perfectly accceptable behaviour” has not been and is not yet well formed as it pertains to today’s communications facilities. So, piracy is the exact same problem it always has been – it will always exist but in order to minimise the impact of existing piracy one must first come to terms with the situation at present. Situational awareness is the problem, more specifically, how to handle the situation that is current communications capabilities.
Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
“…isn’t there something to be said about the fact that stealing or pirating is a problem, regardless of the degree?”
Stealing (depriving someone of physical goods) and piracy (presumably copyright infringement, not acts of robbery or criminal violence at sea) are quite different things. Don’t mistakenly conflate the two.
“…don’t try to tell me that downloading a movie rather then paying to see/own it is perfectly exceptable behaviour.”
You mistakenly believe that those are the only two options. The third is I don’t watch the movie at all because I don’t believe it’s worth the asking price. I might borrow it off someone, or wait for it to play on TV, etc. So if I was never going to pay for it, but I watch a downloaded copy, who is the victim? I might enjoy it so much I pay to see it again on a big screen, or buy the DVD, or recommend it to others who do pay. I might be so impressed with the creator’s work I pay to see their next film. I have done all of these things. Of course if I don’t enjoy the movie, all of the opposites may happen…
If you can only see infringement as an immoral act and a lost sale, you’re views are far more simplistic than reality.
Re: Re: Re:2 Seriously?
@JMT
Your first point is fair enough, although weather or not one is better then the other is something we can agree to disagree on.
If you don’t believe something is worth the asking price, then you don’t buy it, and enough people agree with you then either the seller drops his price or he goes under.
If you borrow it from a friend, then s/he is lending it to you and is thus deprived of it for the time being. It’s his movie, he can lend it or give it away as long as he doesn’t profit of it. I guess if he were to burn himself a copy and lend the original to his friends then we get into a gray area, but I won’t get into that.
As for waiting for it to come on tv, you are paying for it, with your eyeballs. If a movie is on tv, the station playing the movie sells ad space, and everyone wins.
All of these scenarios are totally reasonable, I don’t think anyone has issues with them. Gwis made the statement that a problem needed to be ‘defined’ before we can begin to discuss it, and I put forward the statement that the problem has been defined, just not properly quantified. We know there are people who could have seen or bought the movie through legal means, and simply chose not to, and the artists/authors/movie makers lost SOME money on this.
And before anyone else replies saying how I just down’t get it or I’m some crazy ideolog, notice how I stress the SOME. Is it as much as Hollywood is crying it is? No. Does it justify SOPA/PIPA? Fuck no. Will it probably be fixxed through inovating the way we see movies, ala netflix and quality 3d movies (no clash of the titans 2-and-a-half-D) rather then try to censor and lock down every site? Almost definately. But there still is a problem and it does have to be adressed, saying there isn’t one can be just as bad as going overboard trying to correct it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Seriously?
“If you don’t believe something is worth the asking price, then you don’t buy it, and enough people agree with you then either the seller drops his price or he goes under.”
How do we find out before hand?
Don’t forget, most items we are talking about cannot be returned after cellophane has been torn.
Re: Re:
I don’t know about Mike, but I’d be happy to show up at your table and offer a solution. In fact, here it is:
Abolish copyright laws.
That would put an end to copyright infringement over night.
Re: Re:
Protip: When someone offers you a solution, plugging your ears and screaming LALALALALA, then claiming they never offer solutions isn’t going to get you many friends.
Re: Re:
Somehow I think there is a /sarc tag missing here, because Mike has shown time and time and time again what Hollywood needs to do.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.
Re: Re: Re:
But if you put up a gate and fence around the water, you can charge the stupid people to pay for it. And then, you hire an accountants to make sure that it looks like you haven’t made a single buck, instead you lost millions from the distribution of that water. And then hire lawyers to sue anybody who dares share his water with others.
Finally, get a huge yacht and sail it on the water while pissing over the side, so that the water and people don’t forget who owns them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And sue God into Hell should he dare to make it rain.
Too little, too late
You’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s a step in the right direction, but I will be writing letters (paper ones, since that’s a technology they understand) to my union leadership to let them know this weak sauce conciliation needs to go a lot further.
To my fellow union members: seriously, now is the time to get involved. Whether you are in a “Hollywood” IATSE union (most of the world lump us in as “Hollywood” whether we live in L.A. or not), a Teamster or other AFL-CIO we need to make our voice heard. I know a lot of you have been scared to raise the issue, but now there is safety in numbers. Speak up in your union meetings and write to your leaders. Let them know that making short sighted deals with MPAA to support bad legislation is unacceptable, and we will all be paying attention in the future. Remember, union leaders are elected too…
Problems with perception
Part of the Hollywood unions problem is that they are having a problem perceiving themselves as the bad guys in this.
The studios have sold a bill of goods that the reason for all of the problems in the world is the internet and the “thieves” who are stealing their content.
Unions are used to being on the “liberal” side of arguments and don’t like to see themselves as limiting freedom of expression.
Their perception is that they are the good guys on the side of the “people”.
The reality is that this time they got caught on the side of the devils that they think that they are fighting.
Re: Problems with perception
Dude, if Hollywood wrote a script with villains like this, they’d be called as being too unrealistic.
Re: Re: Problems with perception
this is due to people equating realism with plausibility.
fiction must be plausible.
reality just has to happen.
Re: Problems with perception
It appears the AFL-CIO needs some changes in their leadership of late. This ‘censorship’ issue they are supporting has been around for a year, a little shorter than the AFL-CIO support for the Keystone pipeline. Maybe they need a reminder to get some young blood in there?
the trouble with lies is that have to become bigger as time goes on to try to cover the earlier lies that were told. the people telling them also have to have very good memories. forget what lie was said previously and you are in trouble. when the subject concerned is one that affects every person in every country, what makes things worse for liars is, ‘the Internet doesn’t forget!’
a good place to start any negotiation is to tell the truth, something that just about everyone concerned with the entertainment industries seems incapable of doing!
Re: Re:
> a good place to start any negotiation is to tell the truth,
> something that just about everyone concerned with the
> entertainment industries seems incapable of doing!
Most of entertainment is about creating fiction and fantasy.
Like those piracy numbers. Or how box office blockbuster movies aren’t profitable. Or how artists who sell lots of records still end up owing the recording industry money.
Where to start. Oh where to start.
“We would hope a new tone can be set that does not pit the creativity and innovation of our directors, actors, performers, craftspeople, and technicians against those innovators in other industries.”
Including both those you claim to represent and those you do not? Such as allowing full and open testimony should these bills or something like them appear again? Remember that you just said you do not stand for but against censorship.
“We hope a new tone can be set that does not include website attacks, blacklists, blackouts, and lies.”
Just as we hope that a new tone can be set in terms of real accounting and not fantasy numbers tossed around by the employers of your memberships that you seem to want to take at face value. That would start to end the lies.
Mike didn’t include this beauty in his post but I will.
“We will work with Chairmen Leahy and Smith to make both possible.”
So you will continue to work with politically damaged goods to attain your goals? Why does that strike me as denial?
Re: Re:
“We will work with Chairmen Leahy and Smith to make both possible.”
Translation: We will remind Chairmen Leahy and Smith of the millions of dollars we’ve raised for their campaigns and threaten to cut off future funding if they don’t fix this in our favor.
You know maybe they should have quit while they were ahead. Copyright has been creeping out largly unknoticed. It did not really affect the day to day lives of most people. Well now that people are waking up they can expect to start feeling people push back. For example:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/reduce-term-copyrights-maximum-56-years/MnXrd3xG
This could very well turn into a very interesting battle. The general population vs. big media.
Re: Re:
Unfortunately, changing copyright terms is a power granted to Congress, not the POTUS.
The petition (if it gains enough signatures) will probably just generate the response: “This is not our job, please contact your congressmen.”
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I admit that the petition will not actually change the law. My point is more that the existence of the petition shows that people are starting to stand up and try to push back. Sure they are pushing at the wrong place now but if enough people push then Washington will feel it.
The important thing right now is to get people to stand up and do ANYTHING. Sure a lot will do things like this that will have little to no effect but they are at least out there trying. Once enough people are standing they can then be directed to actions that will have an effect.
I just find myself excited to see what I hope is a building momentum to get things fixed.
Re: Re:
56 years is too long which is partly why I won’t sign that petition.
Re: Re:
56 years is *way* to long – lets get one for 7 years and then I’ll sign it.
Re: Re: Re:
“56 years is *way* to long – lets get one for 7 years and then I’ll sign it.”
56 years was the standard (actually 28 plus a 28 renewal you had to file for or you didn’t get it) before 1978.
And it worked until Disney, seeing the 56 year period ending for their oldest properties, lobbied Congress for extended copyright terms in the mid-1970s.
They also pushed for eliminating things like filing paperwork, which helped the Library of Congress actually keep track of copyrights, but cost the corporations money to create.
Look where we are now…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
…mickey mouse laws.
wgos lying
MPAA = LIES DAMN LIES AND VIDEO TAPE. where have i heard that before. its the title to a movie Hollywood not a way of life.
yes, let's start from the beginning....
“We believe that the light should be being shined on every aspect of this discussion and on all of those who have a stake in it”
Can we start with a discussion of Copyright itself, and include “The Public”?
Re: yes, let's start from the beginning....
Demma ground zero right about now.
“We hope a new tone can be set and it is not one that turns our advocacy for this legislation into an implication that we promote censorship.”
And if the legislation you’re advocating for we’re just supposed to quietly ignore that fact and not point it out? I mean either you’re stupid and you don’t know what’s in it or you’re lying.
Unfortunate
It’s kind of unfortunate that Anonymous has taken and setup DDos attacks at web sites. This is just the kind of thing that will win Hollywood the public support they are after..
It’s not unthinkable to rationalize that Anonymous will ironically help to enable the one thing they dread the most.
As for Anonymous targetting the Feds website. I will say this, they certainly have cojones the size of basketballs.
Re: Unfortunate
Or perhaps Anonymous has more agent provocateurs and plants than could fit in the Pentagon?
Re: Unfortunate
Anonymous well knows that DDoS is unlawful in most countries and can put them in prison for about a year. So do not doubt their bravery when they go nuclear on the FBI website knowing the resources they have to find them and punish them.
For a long time Anonymous cut out doing DDoS against websites when the gain was not worth the punishment. This Mega matter through was certainly important enough to launch their most successful attack to date.
And should they get busted their only defence is “denial” and if that fails then they have the honour of becoming a political prisoner.
“We believe an Internet that does not allow outright stealing has to be the Internet of the future or all the promises it holds will be unrealized.”
The internet of the future is here now, and all the promises it holds are being realized, but the promises it holds are not to support middleman transactions between the public and artist – it’s to eliminate the middleman between the public and the artist. It is therefore a direct threat to your power and livelihood.
And until you stop calling it stealing, you are not fostering debate. Copying is not theft. Copying is infringement. It’s a legal issue. Stop trying to make a moral issue out of it. All you are doing is showing your fear.
You state your beliefs as if that’s the outcome we must all agree upon, when it’s actually your beliefs that need to be debated. We do not trust you in this debate, because it is our belief that you are unlikely to ever change your beliefs.
Re: Re:
“insightful” is a bit of an understatement – had I more to click I surely would have.
Also, before we have ANY discussion about how much to restrict the Internet (because that’s what they really mean here), how about we first have a discussion about the huge overreach of current copyright laws, and how twisted they’ve become.
Copyright was never supposed to be LIFE + 70 YEARS. How are you supposed to promote creativity when someone (usually a corporation) owns some creative work for over a century? This is a real issue because ALL creativity comes from OTHER creativity. No creative work is 100% original and no idea is 100% owned by someone. That’s why copyrights and patents are supposed to have term limits. So others can later take your works and improve on them and add new ideas to them, just like you have done with your work that on based on somebody else’s work.
This a great article:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/01/on-pirates-and-piracy.html
Let’s talk about the lies that the legislation would not censor free speech — when even the big First Amendment lawyer you presented to support this bill admitted that protected speech would be taken down under these laws.
It is widely recognized and a matter of law that holding up a shield of non-infringing work to protect a mass of infringing content is NOT censorship under the First Amendment. This is the essence of the question Rep. Watt asked the Google lawyer. Does taking down a site that displays both child porn and the King James Bible equal censorship. Same question for infringing content and the bible. Supreme Court says no. Take it up with them crybaby.
Re: Re:
Yes, to both. However, to claim that we live in a “civilized” society, we must have laws.
Just because we all agree on certain laws does not mean that they do not abrogate speech: it simply means that we agree to abide by that particular law.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, to both. However, to claim that we live in a “civilized” society, we must have laws.
The US Supreme Court begs to differ, pervert.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whyso? Just because it’s a law doesn’t mean that it can’t also restrain speech. Calling for the death of someone is unlawful under cyberbullying laws. That is censorship, albeit one that most would (at least in part) agree with.
You didn’t even bother with the explanation I gave. I’ll quote it again, because you seem to have missed it:
Just because we all agree on certain laws does not mean that they do not abrogate speech: it simply means that we agree to abide by that particular law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Yes, I am a pervert. I have sex sometimes. That’s perverted, yet also necessary, otherwise the species would die out for a lack of offspring.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moreove,r now that I’ve slept, Don’t report this guy, he’s a pervert too. Of justice, frredom and truth.
Re: Re:
“Does taking down a site that displays both child porn and the King James Bible equal censorship?”
No, it equals stupidity.
Why would you take down the whole site?
Just have the child porn content removed/deleted and leave the Bible content!
Or are you totally techno-illiterate, boy?
Re: Re:
“Does taking down a site that displays both child porn and the King James Bible equal censorship.”
Both are censorship. However…
Society has generally come to a consensus that censoring child porn is acceptable.
Society has generally come to a consensus that censoring the King James Bible is not acceptable.
SOPA
The US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. There is no guarantee of copyright. Constitution trumps copyright. And that is how it should be.
Re: SOPA
The US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech.
The US Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms……….but not if you are convicted of certain crimes.
Constitutional rights are not absolute.
Re: Re: SOPA
Then why does the text say “inalienable” in it?
Re: Re: Re: SOPA
Go read a couple of centuries of case law. It can all be found at the Library of Congress, unless Masnick’s friends at Anonymous have censored it again with a DDoS attack.
Re: Re: Re:2 SOPA
but that right can only be removed after due process of law has occurred.
Re: Re: Re:2 SOPA
Masnick has friends at Anonymous?
Re: Re: Re:2 SOPA
“Masnick’s friends at Anonymous”
What is it with you people with black & white judgements and ridiculous conspiracy theories?
Re: Re: Re:3 SOPA
It’s the only way to get more tinfoil, methinks.
Re: Re: Re:3 SOPA
Ask him if he was questioned by the government about his servers being used in DDoS attacks by Anon. Go ahead.
Re: Re: Re:4 SOPA
Are you insinuating that you’ve known of the answer beforehand?
You’re either an insider individual who is dancing on the barbed wire fence taunting the other side with your alleged privileged information, or you’re a slimy liar.
Re: Re: Re:2 SOPA
How about you Anonymous, are you one of his friends?
Are you using LOIC on LOC?
These people are the ones responsible for our outrageous copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions, if they want to reconcile themselves with public goodwill the first thing they ought to do is lobby to repeal our existing outrageous laws and demand that they be made more reasonable.
This graphic says it all - Liar Liar Pants on Fire?
Liar, liar, pants on fire?
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sopa_busted.gif
Here’s how it starts off:
Actual letter from Entertainment industry to congress:
Over 2 million Americans across all 50 states earn a living and support their families and jobs connected to the making of motion pictures and television shows. [ . . . rest of lies omitted . . .]
Then the graphic continues:
That’s interesting, because according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were only 361,900 wage and salary jobs in the motion picture and television industries.
[. . . figures omitted . . . ]
Then the graphic continues:
KNOW WHO ACTUALLY DOES EMPLOY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE?
The Tech Industry. Around 4 million jobs in the US.
eBay, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Amazon.com, Oracle
IN FACT, thest 6 Tech companies alone employ more people than the entire motion picture and television industry combined.
Truth
Free and open internet > Hollywood content.
Re: Truth
As far as I’m concerned Hollywood can die in a fire as long as I keep my Internet.
How patronizing. They name two bills in our govt with the word PIRACY in them. They publicly threaten our elected representatives if they won’t stay “bought”. When the web fights back with every resource it has, then we are somehow the bad guys. I am a fan of anon- I hope they hack every last one of those corrupt bastards. I hope they dox every email outlining the corruption that brought this to pass. Every one of the parties that bypassed our legal process to force SOPA and PIPA belong in jail.
“We welcome this debate.”
Ahh, but when ACTA (and other bills) was being negotiated in secret where only you and industry interests were invited, you didn’t welcome this debate.
Re: Re:
(It’s not that you welcome this debate, it’s that you have no choice).
Well I am impressed that they did say a lot of good things there beyond the minor misconceptions.
Unfortunately near the end they did mess up…
“We hope a new tone can be set that does not include website attacks”
The DoJ and FBI did start that one in their service of the MPAA and RIAA.
Them wanting to bring justice to Mega is one thing, and we do not oppose the Government upholding the law, but to do so through deleting 4% of the Internet including millions of Public Domain and Creative Commons titles is a total violation of the free, fair and open Internet that we believe in… and our right to share.
They mention the Library of Congress. Well tell me how people would feel if we burned down the Library of Congress just because it was “assumed” that the management were conduction unlawful acts?
The FBI in their big mistake overlooked that they were not just seizing hardware here.
I should add that the MPAA and RIAA are a bit upset here when Anonymous, LulzSec and many hackers are currently causing large disruption to hundreds of their servers. If you want to moan then remember you started this.
“blacklists”
I presume they mean the likes of GoDaddy and the boycott of SOPA/PIPA supporters. Is it not our right to use boycott as a means of democratic protest?
“blackouts”
Again more lawful protest. It seems they are objecting to our fundamental rights to fight back against proposed laws.
I am proud of the 6000 sites that did blackout even of most people would not have spotted more than 5 of those during the blackout unless they searched. Even history does not record the vast majority of small sites by only noting the bigger ones.
They should remember why this happened… in that our voice was being ignored until we began screaming like crazy people.
“and lies”
Here is hypercritical irony in just one word.
The MPAA and RIAA are well known to be major liars including their economic reports used to back up these bills.
I will be honest and say us unapproved leaders of this revolt did twist the truth in some cases. The public did need powerful concepts to rally them but what we did claim was not untrue either.
Should they now want a lie-less future then sure let us look at the real economics in play and to fix areas where real financial damage is seen to be done. We have no desire to harm media creation but we also want our independent distribution channels and to “share” when there is no harm in doing so.
“We believe an Internet that does not allow outright stealing”
And here is always your core problem. Copyright Infringement is not stealing. Us file sharers are happy to admit that we infringe copyright but my own 400+ title DVD library clearly highlights that I do not “steal”
“has to be the Internet of the future or all the promises it holds will be unrealized”
Here is some irony for you. The Tech Industry of the Internet could enforce copyright protection to levels beyond their wildest dreams. But we simply will not undertake such a goal until our own demands are met.
1. A major reduction in the term of copyright and 30 years sounds a good start. It would also help to simplify the process when the complexity they have already added makes enforcement much harder.
2. To establish and promote a viable Public Domain as a resource of ideas and free entertainment. Those who seek Copyright Protection must also welcome the addition to the Public Domain once the term has expired.
3. To make non-commercial file sharing lawful all the time that economic damage is not being done. This is a great free promotion and advertising resource that can help to boost sales. Should harm be noticed then the “minimum” action should be taken to resolve this problem.
File-sharing sites once lawful should reside as non-profit organizations to avoid commercial exploitation.
Should the MPAA and RIAA submit to these three key points then we will grant them their strictly enforced copyright to sell as they please. No one could then make money on their creation without their approval.
If they reject this offer then the War will continue and they should be aware that the opposition against them increases in leaps and bounds. What they most should fear is that we are now getting organized to fight them on every level and on every proposal.
When the playing field has been levelled then who do you think politicians will listen to? A monopolies thirst for greed and control? Or the public’s desire for freedom and harmless fun?
Re: Re:
“The Tech Industry of the Internet could enforce copyright protection to levels beyond their wildest dreams.”
How?
Re: Re: Re:
First there would need to be an on-line media database that anyone could access stating the nature of media (including copyright term) and digital fingerprinting. This digital fingerprinting needs to be carefully done to avoid fair use conflict.
Copyright would also need to become global beyond the current national when the Internet has no borders.
Websites would then be required to check media upload against the digital fingerprinting. For example Mega already did this to avoid repeated upload to save space.
The upload of copyrighted media for personal storage should be allowed unless shared… on the wrong service.
Should a match be found then a much more detailed comparison would need to be done to avoid mistakes. Then the infringing media can be deleted. However I believe it best if upon a match a digital note is sent to the owner asking if they would prefer to make money from their supply instead.
And all that is done automatically through a central database which is all owners need to maintain. Needing to search the Internet for infringement would be much reduced with no more DMCA take down notices.
The only problem, beyond those refusing to play ball, is when media is re-encoded to a point the digital fingerprinting fails. Then owners only need to find out these copies and claim ownership as well. All sites then spot that change and mass deletion follows.
False claims should carry harsh punishments. Media grab is a nasty business.
We should also consider inserting a digital media status record into the file which would much help in many ways. People could see Copyright, Public Domain or Creative Commons when they play the file. To avoid tampering it would need to be hash checked. Not the best solution when to crack the system only needs to understand the encryption method for the hash. However that can be used no problem for information purposes only.
Control only works through cooperation.
“The upload of copyrighted media for personal storage should be allowed unless shared… on the wrong service.“
Under the current regime, all expression that is sufficiently creative to meet the threshold is automatically “copyrighted”. Your suggestion would prohibit online activities such as sharing family photos, sending emails, and even posting comments on message boards.
And the likelihood of SOPA or PIPA becoming law, in this Congress, has gone down even more. SOPA has lost four more consposors, and PIPA has lost one, as of the latest updates on Thomas and Govtrack. PIPA is down to 33 consponsors and SOPA is down to 24, as of today’s update.
Tone?
I don’t think I want the tone changed in this particular conversation just yet. Your tone has been one of contempt, abuse, ridicule and falsities. Your tone sucks. You’re just starting to have to pay attention to our tone and now you want to change it? I don’t think so. Not now, not yet. We’re not done debating with you nor are we even on a level playing field, hell the game has just started and you want to flip the coin again?
Your tone sucks and you’re going to have to work a lot harder to make up for that before we change anything.