Skip to main content

View Diary: Protect IP author makes significant concession in the face of online pressure (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This whole semantic argument about the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    use of the word theft is a complete sideshow.  Bottom line is the unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is illegal. Period.  The rogue/pirate websites that this bill targets are illegal and breaking the law.

    There is no business model that can coexist with rampant IP theft. Many have tried in the music business and have failed.

    The hyperbole about breaking the internet in your analogies are just way off base.  There is nothing in this bill that is even remotely approaches taking away a global communication mechanism.  It's just not true.

    What we have here is Google and a few tech companies  resisting regulation because Google profits from piracy.  So they start this internet campaign thru EFF and other organizations that make outrageous claims about the bill breaking the internet and censorship etc.  It's the same crap the Health insurance industry did with the healthcare bill or the coal and energy industry is doing about cap and trade and the EPA.

    Right man, right job and right time

    by Ianb007 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:13:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  spotify tried, succeeded (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they use torrenting tech to operate, work beautifully, and are legal. their business would be impossible to operate without filesharing technology.

      what other music business companies have really tried and failed?
      did the itunes store dry up from torrent competition, or did ease-of-use win out?
      what exactly is google's piracy revenue stream?

      and of course, you're totally right....the ability of a government to blackout a website based on the allegation of a private company doesn't pose any risk at all to speech on the web.

      We keep electing whores to congress, and we wonder why we get screwed while the money flows to their pimps.

      by papa monzano on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 02:32:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Spotify does not generate content. They are not a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        record company.  They are simply licensing material from labels.  Filesharing technology is not the issue here. It's rogue sites that ripoff content owners by illegal sharing and streaming etc.

        Itunes is not a record company either and second it's not a money maker for apple because they are using it to sell ipods, iphones etc.

        Google profits from piracy by their adds on content infringing sites.  They recently payed a huge 500 million dollar fine to the feds for knowingly running ads on illegal sites  in this case pharmaceutical sites (also covered in SOPA)

        Google fined

        Google piracy profits

        Right man, right job and right time

        by Ianb007 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:10:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  then the law already works, doesn't it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          so google did something illegal, were caught and fined.

          and the additional law is needed because....?

          why does it matter whether spotify created the content? i thought it was the illegal use of that content at issue here. Spotify pays the content creator (well, the label...) and everything is fine. Pirate Bay does not pay creators, and there's the issue.

          Why instead doesn't Universal Music sell me an album digitally and directly in a manner as easy as piratebay can provide? Or is it just easier for them to not change their pre-digital method of distribution and lobby for even harsher laws?

          why don't HBO and NBC just sell me shows directly?

          Sounds like the opposite of trying-and-failing to me. Sounds like lobbying for tools so they don't have to adapt.

          We keep electing whores to congress, and we wonder why we get screwed while the money flows to their pimps.

          by papa monzano on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:30:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OH jeez (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            SOPA is not directed at Google but at the rogue sites beyond the reach of the US.

            No the business model that people are screaming about is the labels themselves.  They are the ones everyone is saying has a outdated business model that they need to change.

            People can already buy albums as easy easily from numerous legal websites. itunes, amazon even google music are all legal and have been available years now.  Itunes gas been around since 2002.  10 years,   Sony even has their own music service.  What they can't offer that pirate bay offers is FREE.

            TV Studios have been offering TV shows on itunes for years now.  Some are even behind HULU, a legal on demand service that offers some TV shows for free.  The fact is content creators have been trying all sorts of models for years now.

            The ones that have failed  I don't have time to mention cause I'm about to go see a movie LEGALLY now.

            Right man, right job and right time

            by Ianb007 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:46:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Pirate Bay doesn't do anything (0+ / 0-)

            except give the public a place to post .torrent files, and these link to whatever each user chose to code into it. The users decide what is or is not accessible through those files, and which ones to download or not. That's ultimately where all this is going, an attack on any place on the internet where people are allowed to share information without being monitored by Big Brother. The enemy is the users: the public, because wherever the public is allowed to freely exchange information, some of it will always run afoul of copyright law. Thus the agenda is to eliminate any space for free communication and exchange of information by the public, i.e., "destroy the internet". In China, being the kind of state it is, they turn the internet into a police state for ideological control. The US, being the kind of state it is, they turn the internet into a police state to serve private profit. A distinction with little difference.

            •  Pirate Bay is giving people a platform (0+ / 0-)

              to download copyrighted material illegally.  Please don't be disingenuous.  Everyone here knows what pirate bay is doing.  All torrent sites are doing is an end around copyright laws by not storing the copyrighted material on their servers.  Please.

              Right man, right job and right time

              by Ianb007 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:25:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  not semantics, propaganda (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koosah, papa monzano

      The semantic argument about "theft" is extremely important to those pushing these kinds of terrible laws, ...right up until someone points out that it is false terminology. Anyone promoting these laws will invariably call regular people non-commercially sharing files with each other "thieves" and that we have to stop this "theft" and "stealing", by any means necessary. This semantic game is basically the only tactic they have, and it is just propaganda. It isn't factually correct, as papa monzano already pointed out, but it's the only real trick they have to try to manipulate the public into thinking about one thing (copyright infringement) as something else (theft) to get a more favorable spin for their agenda. Since the public can be counted on to have a more negative reaction to the idea of "theft", this framing is used, regardless of the fact that "it's just not true." Only when someone points out that this is a false, emotional assertion, does it then become "semantics" and a "sideshow" that we shouldn't be worried about. Before that, it is central to all the dishonest rhetoric of the people pushing these bad laws.

      So you try to deflect the issue as a "semantic sideshow", but then of course in the very next paragraph you go right back to your woobie, decrying "rampant IP theft".

      As for the claim that, "There is no business model that can coexist with rampant IP theft.", even the dinosaur ones coexist and profit. These industries just want MORE, as they always would no matter how much they are profiting. If they get these bad laws passed, they'll be right back next year lobbying for worse laws, since these haven't completely stopped all the "theft" yet, of course.

      Here are the movie industry yearly revenues since the introduction of widespread internet access/"rampant IP theft" in the mid-90's (in billions):

      Oh the Humanity!! Can't you see how victimized they are, by Thieves!?! We must turn the internet into a totalitarian police state immediately so they can increase their profits even more than they already have been during the advent of "rampant IP theft".

      •  The movie industry is working hard to avoid the (0+ / 0-)

        faith of the music business that has seen it's sales drop over 50% in the last 10 years.  

        Call it whatever you want "infringement" theft or illegal copying or downloading.  Bottom line is that it's illegal. i.e against US federal law.  Theft is used because it's term that people understand.  Taking something that you normally would have to pay for without paying for it.

        Doesn't matter what industry is making or what they could be making.  Illegal activity is still illegal.  Go rob a bank then tell the judge that it doesn't matter cause banks are still making money. Go ahead and try it.

        Right man, right job and right time

        by Ianb007 on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:02:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site