Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns

Posted by samzenpus on from the don't-worry-about-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The EFF has gone into detail about why it opposes 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act,' or COICA. It has the potential to give the Department of Justice the power to shut down any domestic website, or block any foreign website it so chooses, setting the stage for Internet censorship in the United States. Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"

3 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. You can't steal from corporations by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can't steal from corporations.

    They aren't people.

    They can't be drafted.

    They can't be executed.

    They never serve a day in jail.

    Thus, stealing only occurs when you steal from people.

    No matter what the Supreme Court says.

    P.S.: Revert to the original patents and copyrights in the original Constitution if you want us to respect them.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:You can't steal from corporations by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More importantly, as not all copyright holders are corporations, violation of copyright protections is not theft. It is not stealing. It is not burglary, it is not piracy.

      It is violating copyright protections.

      And as far as that goes, neither the Copyright Acts or 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' are permitted to run contrary to the First Amendment, regardless of it's purpose.

  2. "Theft"? "Stealing"? No. by macraig · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think what is really needed is legislation that outlaws this sort of attempted perversion of the words "theft" and "stealing".

    Once we've put a stop to that perversion, the rest of Big Media's FUD campaigns will abruptly end. Since digital media by its very nature can be replicated endlessly with virtually no material cost, exactly what is being "stolen" here? NOTHING! Sure, packaging has material costs, but the "pirates" (infringers) aren't getting that packaging, are they? The cost of producing the "art" contained in the digital file was incurred ONCE, and the expectation of recouping those expenses is SPECULATIVE; the price of the packaging is a guesstimate, based on a hoped sales volume to result in some net profit. What if simply no one actually buys the package, even in the absence of "piracy"? There would have been no "theft" by this perverted definition, yet they still lose their shirts and don't get the desired profit. There's not a shred of certainty that denying people the ability to copy digital media will guarantee an equivalent increase in actual PACKAGING sales, so that argument is also FUD.