Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Chief Whines That SOPA Opponents Were "Unfair"
First time submitter shoutingloudly writes "In a NY Times op-ed today, RIAA chief Cary H. Sherman accuses the opponents of SOPA of having engaged in shady rhetorical tactics. He (wrongly) accuses opponents such as Wikipedia and Google of having disseminated misinformation about the bills. He lashes out at the use of the term 'censorship,' which he calls a 'loaded and inflammatory term.' Most Slashdot readers will get the many unintentional jokes in this inaccurate, hypocritical screed by one of the leaders of the misinformation-and-inflammatory-rhetoric-wielding content industry lobby."
A gem: "As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact."
I didn't like the legislation either, but isn't this headline and summary kind of biased? I don't know...I just feel uncomfortable having the submission frame it specifically to make me react a certain way. I mean, it flat-out states how "most /. readers" will respond. I'd rather just read what Cary Sherman has to say and come to my own conclusions, which will likely align with others here, but at least I arrived there on my own.
Maybe it's just me. Carry on.
I won't click the link. I just don't want to in any way encourage the Times to print this stuff.
Well, it would be the sound of the world's tiniest violin playing a sad song, but due to copyright restrictions I can't actually post a link to it.
I am officially gone from
Yes, calling a bill that requires ISPs and search engines to block access to certain websites a "censorship" bill is obviously bad -- it gets people angry! We should just sugar coat it and hope that nobody notices that the bill pushes for censorship.
Palm trees and 8
With fiction of that quality, he should write for the studios in a screenwriting capacity instead.
Oh man, I'm suprised that Mr Sherman didn't proclaim that guantanamo bay was a holiday camp.
RIAA : one notch less evil than Gheddafi and Al Assad. We need regime change. ^_^
I don't like the RIAA at all, but if Wikipedia and Google aren't guilty of what is claimed, the submitter sure as hell is. It's great that you've provided an opinion for me 'Unknown Lamer,' because surely I can't be trusted to form one on my own.
Seriously, RIAA has some balls....
Piracy - originally a violent theft (usually at sea). Equivalent of a mugging. But they've changed it to simply mean unauthorized use.
Theft - the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Wait, have the downloaders deprived ANYONE of any tangible property? Nope...once again, RIAA has changed meaning to unauthorized use.
So if "unauthorized use" can mean theft and piracy. Then SOPA can mean censorship.
Perhaps the major media organisations didn't editorialize on SOPA and PIPA because they didn't report on it at all until the bloggers and big web started to make a stink about what big media and the politicians were up to.
SOPA sucks, but the opponents *were* unfair. Nerds love to break free from their boring lives and pretend that they're freedom fighters, and companies like Google played along because it made the nerds happy--never mind that Google didn't shut down their services like a lot of places did, so they cynically got their cake and ate it too. Same with Slashdot. Slashdot is an advocacy site that gets its page views by stirring up the emotions of a particular demographic, and "first time submitter shoutingloudly" pushed all the right inflammatory buttons up there.
I'm all for changing the legislation, but can we stop with this goofy bogeyman stuff against the RIAA? There are valid reasons to fight against piracy. It ruins the argument to be so silly and inflammatory.
"As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact."
And when does Cary Sherman recognize the ethical boundary of paying off the people who vote on this bill -- a bill which clearly serves his interests?
My work here is dung.
I seriously don't think I could read more than a sentence or two of the full op-ed without turning into Rage Guy.
Mr. Sherman: You made a good point in your conclusion, "we need reason not rhetoric." That's exactly why it was a terrible idea for you to have written this rhetoric-filled inflammatory piece /we're done here
No refunds.
He isn't stating facts so much as attempting to create them. From that perspective, everything he says makes perfect sense.
In a NY Times op-ed today, RIAA chief Cary H. Sherman accuses the opponents of SOPA of having engaged in shady rhetorical tactics
Fortunately, the RIAA and it's brethren always engage in reasoned, non-iflammatory rhetoric when presenting their case. After all, it's a well documented fact that every unauthorized, err illegal, d/l of material they own directly results in a terrorist organization receiving money.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
No good sir. If anything, they were far too kind to you. If your opponents were being unfair, they would have made it so when you opened your mouth, only the truth came out instead of bullshit.
Om, nomnomnom...
It's pathetic that within the first line, Mr. Sherman uses the imagery of a "tsunami" to describe what was happened to SOPA.
Comparing your politicking travails to the plight of people and Hawaii, Japan, and elsewhere is just despicable.
It also goes a long way to show how the RIAA and their ilk have completely lost touch with reality. I'm sure none of them see themselves as the bad guys that they are, and feel genuine in their right to complain.
Cary Sherman still thinks this is a battle between "Google and Wikipedia" vs "Media Companies". And that the only reason his companies lost is because the other companies had better PR.
He still doesn't get that what happened was the people who consume the content - content linked to by GOOG, content distributed by Wikipedia, and content licensed by RIAA and MPAA - who finally got off their duffs and exercised their rights as citizens to demand that their elected representatives actually represent them.
I can't be too hard on him. When I ask "Who does Sen. or Rep. X represent", my answer is typically a company or group of companies that funded his/her campaign, and/or hired the lobbyists to write the bills that the politicians sponsor.
To put it in language that Sherman can understand, it's not that Rep./Sen. X changed from (R/D - MPAA) to (R/D - GOOG). It's that, this being an election year, and there being tens of millions of active internet users who are also eligible voters, Rep./Sen X represented (R/D - wishes of their constituents as tallied by their staffers, regardless of donation size).
I actually sometimes wonder about the individual people involved in big media.
I mean we like to personify the RIAA and friends.. talking about it as some kind of big bad pure evil entity, but it's actually a huge collection of people all doing their individual (evil) parts. I wonder if these guys actually take these attitudes home with them, or if they just play the part at work/in public.
Slashdot is not a source of unbiased news. If you expected that you are as dumb as those who expect unbiased news from FOX NEWS.
Cry me a river RIAA, and I'll piss you a data stream.
Practice Static Safety - Hack Naked
That is his opinion....
Cry some more.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Please remember that a good paper publishes relevant opinions, not just ones they agree with. I've seen abortion opponents, global warming deniers, and all kinds of whackos published in their letters section, and you can be damn sure the paper doesn't agree with them. I'm not sure they ever publish full-length editorials they truly disagree with, but you still can't take the presence of this piece as the Times endorsement of Sherman's viewpoint.
So please calm down and stop saying things like "I won't click the link. I don't want to in any way encourage the Times to print this stuff". Censorship isn't just suppressing the very existence of opposing views in the media, you know, you can also censor yourself by refusing to even acknowledge and examine the viewpoints of people who disagree with you. You even ultimately censor your friends and peers to some degree when your behavior leads them to stop thinking and automatically ignore data from certain sources or types of people.
So click the damn link. Know what was actually said rather than just knowing the summary opinions and selective quotations from someone who did read it and already thinks like you. Understand that encouraging full-length discourse over sound bites is always a good thing, even if it it means encouraging lobbyists and liars sometimes.
That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.'
They say they do, but did they ever?
they play fast and loose about this too much. I think every subculture group thats ever been covered in the news can attest to this. They have a great way of influencing court decisions by assuming guilt or lack there of on the onset, and using "news" articles to cater to their opinions.
just because they keep the TONE quasi npov(less and less these days), doesn't mean the content is in any one bit NPOV. When they mean "fair and impartial" they just mean they "dead pan" it to have the stylistic elements of being "fair and impartial". Anyone who's ever watched cable news know how skewed it is, and how news broadcasters use heavy bias in their reporting.
FOX News
MSNBC
CNN
Even before this, they had a long history of skewing the news in any dirrection they like. They NEVER lived up to the standards they pretended to. Like the rest of their arguments, its a bold face lie. This is about command and control, and their made up authority.
I do not mean in the 'bubble boy' sense. Specifically, I do not think that Sherman interacts with anyone not in a position where piracy has caused real damage to their income, or who does not have a personal interest in maintaining the current copyright laws. There is no one who Sherman is talking to who is going to say anything negative about copyright.
Talking to Sherman about the privacy situation is like trying to talk to your grandmother about the internet. You may work with the internet every day and you may be aware of what Meme's are, you have an opinion on Facebooks privacy policies, and you know enough not to click on links to a certain .cx domain. If you work in that world every day, and all of your friends work in that world every day, it gets harder to relate to people who chose to live a life without an internet connection.
I have no doubt that Sherman was truly surprised at the amount of visible and high profile backlash because in Shermans world, he cannot understand why a 'normal' every day person would have a problem with SOPA and PIPA. So clearly someone else must have manipulated the agenda to turn the masses against his agenda. So I bet that Sherman is certain that once he carefully explains his position that everyone will understand why SOPA / PIPA is a good thing.
END COMMUNICATION
Did you know that, in the 12 hours since Cary Sherman posted his editorial, over 10,000 Americans have lost their jobs? Clearly this man must be stopped before he destroys our economy! And that's why I urge you to support the Stop Cary Sherman/Super-Patriot/I Love America/Support Out Children Act. To do anything less is to deny our children a future of hope and prosperity!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Apparently when one is threatened and attacked, one is expected to maintain "neutrality" between oneself and the attacker.
As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact.
While Google and Wikipedia were very straightforward with their stances on SOPA and PIPA and how they believed it would negatively impact their businesses as well as the freedom of their customers, television networks are not so upfront. Instead of television networks saying what they, as companies, stand for in such a direct way, they make sure to fund and air shows which support their views in an indirect way which doesn't always make it obvious to viewers that what is presented, is in fact mostly opinion. This is transparent in the differences between "news" shows on different networks. Some "news" will take one spin on an issue, vilifying those involved, whereas another will boast about the issue's grand points and turn those involved into saints, all the while claiming this is "news" which as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a "report of recent events" as opposed to opinion parading itself as fact.
Whatever opinions I may otherwise have about some of Google's past behavior, this was a very upfront and honest play on both their part and Wikipedia's. The person who wrote the quote above obviously doesn't look at what they watch on television critically -- which they should. You can't believe everything you hear -- tv included. It's not like there's some governing body making sure what's said on tv is accurate...it's maybe just a notch higher up on the validity ladder than what someone might say to you in passing on the street (though, admittedly with better makeup and lighting).
... We here at the RIAA prefer the term: Corporate Approved Network Demarking and Inhibiting. After all, who doesn't like a nice piece of CANDI?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Preschooler accuses classmate of not playing fair! More at 11!
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
"Policy makers had recognized a constitutional (and economic) imperative to protect American PROPERTY from theft, to shield consumers from counterfeit products and fraud, and to combat foreign criminals who exploit technology to steal American ingenuity and jobs."
From the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
It's not theft of property. It is a violation of your Congressionally granted limited monopoly.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
government (Harper Government) to introduce SOPA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6307/125/
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
We have record profits but want more money. This is a crucial issue that Congress needs to tackle, because record profits aren't enough. To that end, we think that we should have the right to seize personal property without due process. And even though we're currently abusing the DCMA (filing mass take-downs for content they don't own or review), we feel we need more power and promise not to abuse it for censorship.
Why wouldn't people support that?
The RIAA holds artists back from making more money by fighting the adoption of digital music. As content becomes more convenient to digest, people will consume more of it. Stop fighting consumers and embrace them. That is the way to combat piracy. Just look at iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime streaming, HBO Go, Spotify, etc. etc.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
First off, the "author" (used loosely) unfairly lumps the ENTIRE population into the category of gullible schlubs lapping up the misinformation spread by Wikipedia and Google. He assumes (which is par for the course for RIAA and MPAA) that the consuming public is completely made up of blithering idiots and thundering morons and that none of us are capable of understanding any piece of legislation that isn't presented to us in a manner that we "can understand". That destroys any credibility to his statements.
So I'm going to largely ignore what was said in the article because he largely ignored that I leaned about SOPA when the legislation first came about and read up on it for the length of time it was being deliberated in Congress. PIPA as well. Wikipedia only made it stupidly easy to contact my representatives...which I had already emailed about 9 times each concerning SOPA and PIPA prior to the day of protest.
I'm all for protecting intellectual property. But there are serious concerns with those bills that money-grubbing windbags like my senator, Frank Lousyberg, don't see. SOPA and PIPA are both bills intended to prevent people OUTSIDE the U.S. from stealing U.S. property. Great! I love it! But, explain to me HOW a U.S. law will apply to a jurisdiction outside of it's reach like, I dunno, Russia? China maybe? How are you going to punish Oleg in Moscow for a crime against the U.S. using U.S. based legislation without Russian buy in? Simple, you're not. The legislation will only serve to watch and punish U.S. citizens, the ones they say it's going to "protect".
SOPA and PIPA give FAR too much control to non-law enforcement bodies like the RIAA and MPAA by allowing them to get websites and even domains shutdown with "evidence" that amounts to "Hey, that looks like my words "the" and "and" on that webpage! I'd better tell a judge and get them shut down so I can investigate further!" (yes, I know it's exaggeration but it's used to show the absurdity) Once you prove that the ass trumpet that went to court and got the order is wrong, you can get your site turned back on and BAU it all day long. BUT! You have to prove your innocence first.
Let me restate that. You have to PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE FIRST.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law, by a jury of your peers? When did the RIAA become a law enforcement body with judicial responsibilities and furthermore, my peer? In most court rooms, someone with an invested financial stake is tossed off the jury or even reassigned because of a POTENTIAL conflict of interest. Not even an actual conflict, just the potential to have one.
I for one am not happy about any of that. I think the legislation is self-serving and far too open for interpretation. I don't even care about what Google and Wikipedia were on about. I don't care if they were spread "misinformation" or not. What I care about is some windbag, crybaby in L.A. putting out BS articles like this because legislation serving his personal agenda was shutdown by a government for the people and by the people because THOSE people think it sucks.
BTW Mr. Sherman, your profits and sales are down since 1999 because you make a shit product. Nobody wants to pay for your over-priced, overly produced, auto-tuned schlock. Piracy isn't destroying your business, your customers are. If my company lost 50% of it's market share over the last 12 years we'd be out of business...mainly because we don't have half of Congress in our back pocket to prop up our sucktastic business model and mediocre product line. I guess it's easier to point the finger away than to look at your sniveling, self-serving mug in the mirror, huh? So, tell me, what happens when you do actually get to stop piracy (good luck) and you're still hemorrhaging money and market? Who are you going to blame then? Or will we all still be stupid and not know a good thing when we are told to like it?
That RIAA chief has got to be the worst kind of sociopath.
Probably cheats on his wife.....with underage children prostitutes.
Screw that douchebag and whatever backstabbing he had to do to become the RIAA chief...
Yes, ad hominem attacks with absolutely zero evidence of any kind are definitely the way to invalidate his point that anti-SOPA people are using shady rhetorical tricks.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
If that's what Mr Sherman sees as unfair then I want his opinion on this.
good video izle
You mean it's unfair that they got the bill put in a drawer through mobilization of constituents, rather than the RIAA's mobilization of currency?
Don't you have something better to do, like filing more lawsuits against your customers?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Oddly enough and against my expectations Cary H. Sherman actually made a few valid remarks in that article. However, he misses a very important point that can't be overlooked, the RIAA is absolutely positively NOT the US government and giving an organization like that that kind of power is a mistake. The other problem is that we have a bunch of older people who barely understand technology trying to make laws based on what an organization with a monetary interest in those laws says. Instead of approaching things from a legal rights based standpoint, Congress keeps approaching it in an industry-lobbyist-says-so kind of way and that will not work. I keep hearing politicians say that the rich do not control our government, but it sure does look like it to me. You want me to believe that the RIAA and others like them don't get undue consideration in these things then prove it with actions or get out of my Congress.
I believe that individuals in the RIAA do indeed care about the legality of the way in which the internet is used, however, since the members of that organization are for profit companies I do NOT believe they collectively act in the best interests of anyone but themselves. Let this be a warning to today's politicians, if you don't start paying attention to the desires of your actual constituents and the true legality of the issues we will vote you out of office.
Favortie one of the reader comments from the article (paraphrasing here for fear of copyright violations - ha!)
"What the RIAA really needs is not a new law; but a new business model"
Sums it up rather nicely.
Kids sued for thousands for downloading a song or a movie? Attempts to impose our electronic rule in other countries? The potential for political information suppression?
Yes, let's discuss "unfair."
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I find the term "piracy" a loaded and inflammatory term.
You insensitive bastard!
Rick B.
This time around, it's Democrats who have a strong pro-Hollywood lobby, labor unions and the Chamber of Commerce.
All the more reason to exclude all lobbyists from Washington, DC.
just didnt do a good job, the only thing I heard on CBS (for instance) was on the blackout day a 20 second mumbling and "CBS supports the bill" and nothing else. You guys can claim Google and Others did not fight fair, even though they were right, but it sounds like your being a sore looser cause your team forfeited.
Cary Sherman still thinks this is a battle between "Google and Wikipedia" vs "Media Companies". And that the only reason his companies lost is because the other companies had better PR.
He still doesn't get that what happened was the people who consume the content - content linked to by GOOG, content distributed by Wikipedia, and content licensed by RIAA and MPAA - who finally got off their duffs and exercised their rights as citizens to demand that their elected representatives actually represent them.
No, I think he really does get it -- but it's easier to build a case against Google and Wikipedia as the next big evils to legislate against. Google, Wikipedia, and the open Internet in general are anathema to the old top-down television-and-radio style of content provision. I don't think he's trying to sway public opinion, he's making a calculated misrepresentation to emphasize the perceived danger of these two with Congress and thereby pave the way for the next round of paid-for dubious laws that help narrow the competition. The more the MAFIAA can turn the Internet into just another TV channel, the more they can extend their ride on the gravy train.
He really does get it. And that makes him more dangerous.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Even screwballs like this guy are entitled to an opinion.
The problem is he's not satisfied with having an opinion -- he's trying to change the law to suit his screwed up world-view. You can't have someone who is clearly on acid making decisions about the legal structure of nations.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
RIAA chief gets his head handed to him by the Internet. He feels compelled to reply, and his choice of venue is...
An old-line media outlet that loses relevance every time one of its articles slips back inside its paywall.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
"Apparently, Wikipedia and Google donâ(TM)t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact".
Obviously Cary doesn't watch Fox News®.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Let's take a step back and imagine what a reasonable solution looks like, one that balances IP and fair use. When CDs were the primary media format, it was lawful (under the Copyright Act of 1983, if I'm remembering correctly) to make a tape from a CD, so long as the tapes were distributed for free, or a nominal fee not more than the cost of the tape transfer process ($1?). Why can't we do that now?
Establish a bit rate threshhold for music (resolution/fps for video) and allow people to share files in those "less than perfect" formats, just as we once could with cassette tapes. Anything above that threshold would require a purchase/license. Heck, I'd be fine if a minimal fee (fractional pennies to pennies) were imposed on each and every media-capable player or storage device (much as blank CDs had such fees built in).
Just realize that it is entirely natural (and, as shown repeatedly, good for business) to let people share. That's how I got introduced to most of the music I learned to love over the years. Stop trying to fight the concept of sharing, and establish some reasonable parameters that regulate sharing.
Regarding eBooks and similar formats, I love their convenience, but hate their limitations. I believe the First Sale Doctrine (the idea that rights holder get paid their share only on the first transaction--not with each subsequent change of ownership) is one of the greatest concepts in the legal sphere. Since eBook publications are typically licensed to a single user, the provisions of the First Sale Doctrine don't apply. I can understand more objection to its applicability with eBooks, because, unlike books, electronic editions should never deteriorate (that will remain to be seen). Once a physical book is worn enough, you need to buy another copy if you want to read it again. If the First Sale Doctrine applied universally to digital media files, then the need to ever replace a copy of a work is greatly reduced (perhaps only when dealing with physical loss, or system malfunction).
Okay, I'll get off my soap box now before I bore all of you to death.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Policy makers had recognized a constitutional (and economic) imperative to protect American property from theft,
Yep, but a lost sale isn't theft.
to shield consumers from counterfeit products and fraud
True 'nuff. But a lot of the counterfeits are just as usable as the real goods, because they're made in the same factory. Although I've read a good writeup about how faulty, shoddy, or untested electronic components can be a big issue, so this one I understand. The rest of you slashdot people need to understand that he really does have a point here. The feds serve the greater good when they keep people from lying about their product.
and to combat foreign criminals who exploit technology to steal American ingenuity and jobs.
If they're exploiting technology to steal our ingenuity, it sounds like they simply have more ingenuity then we do. It's like you're complaining about the other guy having a longer spear then you.
They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000.
That's because technology has made your job obsolete. Anyone with a grand can go do what it cost you a million dollar to do back in the 90's. Once businesses realized this, they undercut you. Once consumers realized this, they stopped shelling out $30 for a CD with 2 songs they wanted.
Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works.
You would know. The damn bill is CALLED the stop online PIRACY act.
Since when is it censorship to shut down an operation that an American court, upon a thorough review of evidence, has determined to be illegal?
Since it includes the act of shutting it down. You DO know that they censor out tits from daytime television right? And swear words from the radio? At least they used to, I don't really watch TV anymore so that may have changed. But anyway, that's still censorship. It's acceptable because there's a level of expected decency. People want to plug in the nanny for their kids. You're playing word-games with the term "censorship". Misinformation really IS a dirty trick, isn't it?
I think part of the fundamental issue here is that you're treating this stuff as a physical product rather then information. In the digital age, we've turned your physical product into information. Copying is trivial. Distribution is easy. You simply live in the world of yesterday.
I wanted to reply to Mr Sherman to comment about how his industry is dying and PIPA/SOPA is just another government bailout trying to protect an outdated and failing business model. Unfortunately, the comments are closed on the article - I guess he got tired of all the comments explaining in great detail how he's a complete and total dipshit.
These statements are not backed up. Given the industry's history of exaggerating their claims, I put the onus on them to prove that these numbers are in any way correct.
Yet the author's use of "theft" and "piracy" are totally neutral, without any intent to evoke particular emotions in the readership?
This is being purposefully obtuse. The claims of 'censorship' were about collatoral damage: that the laws would have a chilling effect and would be open to abuse. No one was directly equating "shutting down online counterfitting sites" with censorship. (Although, of course, the difference between shutting down a physical store and an online presence is indeed that the Internet is all about communication/data-transfer, and curtailing communication is essentially censorship.)
This is an interesting claim. But if the author is sure that the "No Duty to Monitor" section protects conveyors of content, then why not spell that argument out in detail? Why not quote from the bill, and explain how this protection works? That is the very crux of the disagreement, it would seem, yet the author just mentions it in passing.
This is perhaps the only valid point in the entire piece. It is true that Wikipedia and Google (in very different ways) strive for some measure of neutral transmission of information. I can see how one could argue that using their position as trusted sources of information to spread their own viewpoint is an abuse. However:
1. This is begging the question, by assuming that what Wikipedia and Google were reporting was incorrect. But that is precisely what the debate is about: is it true that SOPA/PIPA would lead to collatoral censorship? If the claim is true (and as far as I can tell, it is), then Wikipedia spreading that information was just another manifestation of them spreading truthful statements.
2. These entities do have a right to let their opinion be known.
3. The opinion piece provides no reason why these companies would be misinforming the populace. What is it they hope to get out of it? Their stated reason is simple: that they wanted to stop the legislation because they couldn't continue operating under the legislation. The author provides no evidence, not even spurious reasoning in fact, for any other motivation. So, one could accuse them of being mistaken, but to accuse them of pushing an ideology is wrongheaded.
This is laughable. Mainstream media has a well-documented history of injecting bias into their reporting (everything from their selection of what to cover, to how events are described, to thinly-veiled ed
My local broadcast station actually did produce a piece trying to push SOPA! But their example of where SOPA would help was a local author, whose out-of-print book was published online...by Google Books.
Of course, Google Books' publishing of out-of-print but still-copyrighted work is controversial - it's the subject of ongoing litigation. But surely SOPA wouldn't help resolve the matter.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
That's what this whiny loser is: a middleman. Can he play one musical instrument? Can he carry tune without using a bucket? Can he act his way out of a paper bag? Write something worth reading? Of course not; he is no artist. His creations are only those of greed, paying the truly creative pennies on the dollar; a leach in an Armani suit.
The comedian Louis C K spent around $200,000 to record a special and put it up for sale with no DRM but simply a plea not to pirate it. He cleared a little over $1 million for his efforts. A creator working directly with his most ardent fans with no middleman required.
Go back though the NYT archives and I'm sure we could also find a buggywhip manufacturer whining about the destructive nature of the horseless carriage.
It's in their EULA.
Oh good, you took everything out of context to prove your point. Usage in that sense came from the actual "pirate at sea stealing things" sense.
And in every example you have given except for 1996, these are the "traditional" meanings of piracy. Even the 1996 entry probably relates to selling counterfeit software, which is common in poor parts of Asia. A physical good is either copied mechanically or reproduced on another medium. Of course the 1654 quote is not long enough to tell if it involves ships.
I don't see any evidence that anyone but the BSA / MAFIAA and media printing MAFIAA quotes have brought "unauthorized use" into the common usage of the word "piracy" until the pre-BSA did in the 1970's. The very concept of copying without using a physical medium did not exist until the digital age.
Copying a disc and selling the disc, whether it's music or software, or movie, meets the pre-MAFIAA definition. But it does not meet the "downloading without paying for it" definition from the 1970's, and I draw a clear line between monetary gain and gainless copying.
Piracy is a subset of copyright infringement which downloading is not a part of, and this overloaded usage equates violently storming a ship at see and plundering its booty with clicking a link and having something without paying for it.
I believe in the evolution of language, but this is not an acceptable overload of the word. We should not accept such usage.
In US law, which is what the MAFIAA follow and what we are discussing for SOPA/PIPA, Piracy is almost always either accompanied by "profiteering" in the sense of counterfeit or otherwise copied tangible items, or specifically qualified as in "Cyberpiracy" such as 15 USC 1129.
The RIAA website answers the "Piracy" question with specifics using "copyright infringement" and "unauthorized", not "piracy"
http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law
A report to Congress summarizes the usage of the term "piracy", and software/music/movies are not mentioned.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00009.htm
It has only caught on in sound bites from MAFIAA, therefore I don't accept the redefinition.
never was. never will be
of course, in the past, they TRIED to be unbiased, but those with vested interest sensed plots and subtle bias nonetheless (unconscious, unpurposeful, or illusionary)
and so the new landscape (same as the old landscape: see "yellow journalism") is pure unadulterated bias all the time everywhere
i actually like it: keeps your bullshit filter healthy... why is your instinct that a media source SHOULD be unbiased? just assume it isn't always, and filter appropriately. depend upon YOURSELF to filter out the bias, depend on no media source to do that for you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't see the summary like that at all. We all know the MAFIAA is reactionary, brutal, and flat wrong. They thoroughly deserve that reputation. They earned it by suing thousands of ordinary people, in an attempt to terrorize us all into giving up the Internet. And by trying to impose DRM on the public. The Sony BMG Root Kit fiasco alone is enough to condemn them, but they've tried much more than that. And they earned their reputation still more by bribing and suborning our legislators into supporting their insane vision, and attempting to hide what they do. Their motives in trying to keep ACTA secret are painfully obvious. They've shown no regard whatever for the damage they've done to the public and artists, while screaming very loudly and selfishly about the supposed damage done to them. At the very least, holding back public libraries from going digital costs us all huge amounts of money in maintaining, housing and tracking "dead tree" copies. Yet the damage they've done is as nothing to the damage they would do if they could.
No, it isn't bias to call it like it is. I don't feel there's much left to debate except the details of what will replace copyright, and so what'd I'd like to do is move on to that, not keep rehashing this controversy that's become almost as fake as the controversy between Creationism and Evolution. They of course refuse to admit it and want to keep it alive, to "teach the controversy", and they have some success because there are a lot of uninformed people who haven't heard or thought much about the issue. Moving on, how can we once and for all end this threat to our freedoms? Shut down this attitude so hard that anyone who ever again dares to raise it will find themselves sidelined in the same way that flat-earthers and other kooks are? A "Freedom of Knowledge" constitutional amendment perhaps?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
The television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn't take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case.
Perhaps that is sufficiently dubious in itself, given the ratio of pro-SOPA to anti-SOPA perspectives presented on the news networks. (don't forget to count single-sentence meme-casting like, "the bill before congress that would prevent online music theft")
That alone is, at best, one-eyebrow-raisingly dubious. But wait! There's more!
Let's take a hard look at the general form of that statement:
[The television networks that] actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn't take advantage of their [broadcast credibility] to press their case.
Two quick substitutions:
[Those who] actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn't take advantage of their [position] to press their case.
So, nobody who supported SOPA gave concert tickets to a Senator whose daughter just loves Bieber? Not one member of the MPAA got a Congressperson's spouse a tour around a movie studio? The Obama kids have never been introduced to a music or movie star by a SOPA supporter? Not a single record label made an introduction between a politician who was up for reelection and an ASCAP rep to talk about public performance rights on the campaign trail?
Oh yeah, and bribery. The RIAA and MPAA bribe our legislators. They give money directly to politicians, and threaten to cut the off if they don't get their way. In public. They call that "free speech" because a corporation handing a politician money is legally indistinguishable from a person speaking. And they have the gall to attack Google and Wikipedia for engaging in actual speech against the bill.
God forbid corporations should start disseminating information about legislation. There is perfectly legitimate graft and bribery going on here, and these rabble-rousers are shamelessly telling the public about the laws that are being purchased! It is unacceptable!
Some people need to go to jail.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact.
Neither does Fox News!
Tough shit, we want to see the RIAA, MPAA and similar so-called trade organizations shut down and the execs and lawyers jailed under RICO.
"the Protect Intellectual Property Act (or PIPA) was carefully devised, with nearly unanimous bipartisan support" YES! It was indeed carefully devised. It had all the bipartisan support that MPAA, RIAA, and entertainment money could buy, and the exclusion of opposition testimony from legislative hearings. So there you have it. A broken watch telling the correct time.
I'm thinking it's a bit like any nasty organization. Are people at lower levels excused from the actions of the people they're supported? Sure, in situations where they could not reasonably know, or if they would be compelled by law or force. To my knowledge, the person who brings Sherman his morning danish and cup of baby blood is not forced to work for the RIAA, so therefore they are part of the problem. Everyone accepting a paycheck from the RIAA is part of the problem, and if their office were to burn to the ground with everyone inside, the greatest tragedy would the loss of perfectly good office furniture.
I'm guessing that RIAA employees and execs are like most people in history doing terrible jobs. The same mouth that issues death sentences for dissidents will be whispering sweet nothings in the ear of a spouse. They probably don't consider their actions to be evil any more than any nation has ever considered themselves to be in a war that God strongly disapproves of. Sherman quite possibly doesn't consider his actions to be fucking evil, and I'm sure that in some aspects of his life he's actually a decent guy. It just happens though that in this context he's a central player in the subversion of government and the judiciary, and as such is a danger to everyone - his paymasters included. In trampling on freedoms, these people are like a logging company that knows that the forest cannot last forever, yet presses on to make as much money as they can before it's gone - ignoring the impact this'll have on successive generations. Fuck this slimy cunt. He's either fully aware that SOPA would have had side-effects far beyond reducing piracy, in which case he's deceptive sack of shit with no regard for anything but his profit, or he's genuinely not aware, in which case he's a shitty lawyer. Sherman, which one are you?
So, correct me if I'm understanding this correctly, the RIAA and MPAA are upset because they:
And they're upset because some organizations put a spotlight on their activities and now they are crying because they didn't get their way? I really don't want to live in a world where these guys have their way.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
I'll take a biased article in which the bias is explicit, and just work with it to extract any interesting information (and opinions) I can from it, over an imaginary "unbiased" article (which has never existed anywhere) any day. Bias is not a problem, it might even be argued that it's sincere. Trying to pass off anything as completely objective is imho much less honest.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
So I can steal GPL code then? Technology lets me do it, after all.
Yes, you can.
Well, technically, no, you can't--you can violate the copyright license under which GPL code is distributed, but you can't actually steal it, unless you're physically taking away the author's hard drives, etc.
But seriously, I think the reason most folks on /. have a problem with GPL violations is because of the hypocrisy involved. Companies viciously enforce their copyrights, but then violate copyright law when it's convenient for them to do so.
Hatta's comment might be flamebait, but it's also pretty much true. Virtually costless, anonymous duplication fundamentally alters the economic underpinnings of modern intellectual property law, and there's really no going back. It doesn't matter how many op-eds Cary Sherman or the Author's Guild publish about how it's unethical to violate copyright... when you confront humanity with the ability to duplicate something of value at essentially no cost, there's only one reasonable result to expect, and it isn't self-control. This doesn't justify the behavior, but reality doesn't need a justification.
IP law needs a total and fundamental reworking to remain relevant in the next century. Whether or not this happens, culture will survive... how creative works are created and disseminated may change significantly, but culture existed long before IP was even a concept.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
"They also argued misleadingly that the bills would have required Web sites to “monitor” what their users upload, conveniently ignoring provisions like the “No Duty to Monitor” section. "
Having just read through HR. 3261 (SOPA), the only mention of "No Duty to Monitor" applies to Payment Network Providers (the people who process credit card charges) and Internet Advertising Services (services that send ads to various websites). There is no "No Duty to Monitor" at all for Internet Sites, Internet Search Engines or Service Providers.
So, no, they were not conveniently ignoring those provisions, because those provisions do not apply to Web sites.
If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
So they didn't get what they want and now they're going to spin it like they were gang-raped. Why?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Yeah, the media was so unbiased as they parroted government propaganda and hired retired generals, who also happened be receiving their talking points from the Pentagon, as consultants. Every time some old-media shill goes off on how "serious" they are, I can't help wanting to punch him in the face.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Slashdot is the last place I'd expect to lecture anybody about distinguishing fact and editorial opinion.
SOPA and PIPA were not about freedom or censorship, but tackling theft. But you'll hide this comment, just because I don't agree with your editor's opinion.
all those liberal news outlets were beating the drums for peace? Oh, wait...
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary:
Meaning "one who takes another's work without permission" first recorded 1701; sense of "unlicensed radio broadcaster" is from 1913.
Soooooo... what did the "P" in "SOPA" mean?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
And it's not unethical for a big money lobby to draft legislation behind closed doors and only spring it on the public once their paid puppets have passed it?
-- L8R, guitardood
I like how he criticizes Google for crossing the line of journalistic integrity. To my knowledge they do not produce any articles or media. He could be concerned about bias in search results, but given that he likes SOPA, I doubt he opposes such bias. Maybe he only likes bias he can control, or maybe he is just ranting and grasping at straws.
If the RIAA / MPAA would have just bought Napster rather than trying to sue them into oblivion, they would have had the chance to make the music/movie industry into what iTunes is today. Instead, they brought Napster into media attention, which caused lots of people to start giving consideration to downloading music instead of purchasing it. They have only themselves to blame for failing to deliver the goods that people wanted to buy - people wanted digital media rather than CDs. They failed to innovate. If only the government would shut them down for being monopolies in their industries, we could all get back to spending our time on more productive issues.
Completeness is far more useful than "lack of bias".
If an article is detailed enough, I can sift through the bias. I can create my own informed opinion given enough information. Any article that skimps on the details does not allow for this.
So in truth, an "unbiased" article is more of a problem. It's much more likely to constitute a "lie of omission" by leaving out key details.
In true Newspeak manner, it will be the "unbiased" article that actually represents the greatest bias.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Reading between the lines, Sherman whines about how the 10,000 person recording 'industry' couldn't CRIPPLE the internet (and 20M plus American jobs) in order to force us all to give them more money. Well BOO HOO!
I wouldn't cross the street to p*ss on the RIAA and MPAA if they were on fire. Their actions over the last 20 years are absolutely, completely despicable. The sooner they go down into the dustbin of history the better off all of us will be.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
"Policy makers had recognized a constitutional (and economic) imperative to protect American property from theft"
I wonder if recognition would have come if the Old Media Industries had not bribed - err lobbied - the policy makers in the first place.
You forgot to mention dead kittens.
Thing about SOPPA is everyone that was against it was more acting just like those idiots who run around and mindlessly chant how amerikah is so awesome, righteous, pure, wonderful, perfect and basically say "Amerikah is the bestest thing ever in the history of ever anything and if you dont like it then get out!"
People opposed to soppa had absolutely no idea of what it is was all they could say is "They is gonna take our internets!!!"
Im not saying soppa is right or wrong, good or bad but what I am saying is the majority of people who were against didnt even have the slightest fucking idea of what it was or why they were against beyond they saw someone else say its bad so they jumped on the bandwagon like a brain dead monkey waving a flag around without even knowing whats on the flag.
Its ok to oppose something but when do you atleast read about it, form your own opinion and dont just run around spouting catch phrases.
You don't buy a Senator/Congressperson. You license them for limited use.
tell me another profession on this planet, which produces 1-2 items, and can sit on them for entirety of their lives and into their retirement.
i code every day to earn my living. i dont see the right of a musician or artist, to write one song a year, go to 1-2 concerts, and take the rest of the year off.
until i can also have that kind of thing, i dont recognize their right to do it. period.
Read radical news here
He said that Fox does it while claiming it's unbiased news and not an editorial. That it happens overhere is not because it's news, but because it's someones' opinion. In practice *all* news stations and papers are biased. Even if the publications themselves appear to be neutral in content, the placement or the lack of placement tends to be biased. Left wing media tend to focus more on good things left wing parties do and on bad things right wing parties do and vice versa.
Be smart, roll your own opinion based on facts if at all possible. Or if you can't get first hand information, be sure to check actual reports by as many different sources as you can get your hands on. Twitter has them, but the are hard to find due to enormous chatter of retweets and misinformation, live sat-feeds sometimes show different stories and pictures than what you get after editors got hold of the material as well. Read both left and right wing newspapers, watch more than one channel's news etc etc. It does help to have every perspective possible to a situation represented, if you honestly want to form your own opinion and not be part of the sheeple.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
It takes an author years of their life to arrange the words in such a way as to bring entertainment value to you in the form of a book
it takes an author YEARS of their life ?
ok. i will totally avoid entering into subjects like ghost writers, copycating and whatnot, and will just ask you instead :
so, the author can spend years of his/her life to create a something, and then s/he can just sit on that for the rest of his/her life ?
please tell them to fuck off. if a server admin is working every day to earn his/her living, they will do that too.
either nobody has to work every day of their lives, or everybody has to.
Read radical news here
Accepting newspeak is part of the problem.
Google, amazon, rackspace et al, should NOT stay idle in this calm phase. The only way to end this censorship threat is to kill dinosaur industries of movie, music and news media. OR, the least, buy out entire houses and government and keep the bought out representatives in eternal vigilance against those industries, and legislate against their evil. im using the word buy/bought, since the mpaa chairman finally dropped the pretense about bribery in politics.
On the non government organizations side, eff, savetheinternet.org et al should continually campaign not only against such potential laws, but also campaign against the incumbent dinosaur industries and teach people what they are trying to do, and what their evil intentions are. it should be so that no such bastard-on-a-leash should be able to dare issue any statement in favor of the media axis of evil. Also these ngos should push for pro-internet legislation.
lets boil it down to what it came to be in the end :
this is a war in between rich media vs internet.
internet, is us. it is 'we, the people'. and obviously, the media is 'they'. and they do not have any hesitation of classifying this as 'us vs them' themselves - long ago they classified us as the enemy.
so lets not be politically correct about this, and call the turd by its name. incumbent media is our enemy.
Read radical news here
RIAA needs to grow a pair.
It's called meme bombing and it's the only weapon the 99 percent have to fight back against the Corporations That Are People But Never Go To Jail Or Get Executed.
It's just the start. SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA are abominations.
If you want us to rise up with pitchforks and torches, RIAA, you're doing a fine job.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
American senators cannot be bought!
.
.
.
.
.
.
(They can only be rented.)
If you want to reduce piracy, there are much better ways. I would bet that Apple has been the most successful at this with iTunes. Not because of their stupid DRM format, but because it's easy to get music legally, possibly even easier than the piracy methods. This kind of legislation wastes all of our time and money and is an abomination. It'll never work, you'll never kill piracy. It wastes taxpayer money as well as the ISPs who have to implement this kind of thing somehow, and it very literally stifles innovation. Going through congress is the wrong way to combat piracy. Just being clever is the right way.
Is there such a thing?
Can you name a news outlet that isn't easily identified with a specific political agenda.
Fox ( way right).
CBS/NBC/CNN (mostly-left)
PBS ( way left)
what else is there, most internet sources don't eve PRETEND to not be biased.
Does anyone even believe in objective journalism in anything more then theory anymore?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
From my experiences, many of them have fully adopted the righteous victim mentality. They honestly believe this stuff is true and will unrepentantly attack anyone who disagrees with them. The use of biased terms helps them feed into that myopic righteousness where anything they do is justified because somebody else did something first. Effectively, they seem to share the same siege mentality that the average "persecuted" cult member has and reasoning with them is equally futile. But that's just from my experience.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The RIAA, and other so-called trade associations that lobby Congress, exists by trumping up FUD like this. They make their living (quite sizeable ones) as self-styled champions of the industry against on-going threats. Mr. Sherman has to put on a good and public show, writing to newspapers, appearing on television, and producing "public interest" advertising for radio, print, and TV in order to show the "members" of the RIAA that he's doing something really, vitally important, and therefore deserves to keep getting paid.
It's not about whether he "gets it"; it's about whether the members of the RIAA believe he's out there earning the money they send him.
It's a racket, and the D.C. area is full of 'em. Everyone from the MPAA to the NRA, extorting huge bucks one industry or interest group or another in return for "advocacy" and "representation". The trouble is, you can't expect to get big money from people unless the threat is really huge. So, it literally pays a guy like Sherman to pump up an issue like piracy to a level like it's the apocalypse, and all he has to do is write a few articles, produce a few scary ads for print and television, and act important while he wines and dines people on Capitol Hill.
Think about that. That's how he makes his living. Sure beats working, doesn't it?
That's why I don't take too much meaning out of his piece. His stuff is not intended so much to convince people over the issue, than to justify his existence to the industry members that pay him. It doesn't even matter if he's successful: SOPA can succeed or die (preferably die even)... as long as the industry and its investors keep worrying, Sherman and the RIAA get paid! They fit into that weird freakonomic human behavior where you can't quantify something's worth against some uncertain threat, but your FUD is bigger than the dues you're paying, so better to just keep paying up every year (just to be safe!). And so, for good or ill, the RIAA keeps on doing just what it's been doing.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
We payed those senators and lobbyists sooo much money and they didn't vote how we told them to! It's not fair! That's not how congress is supposed to work!
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
> "They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged... They studied the problem in all its dimensions, through multiple hearings."
That was in 1999... thirteen years ago. Things have changed a ton since then, both in advents of the media industries and in terms of how media is distributed online.
> "When the police close down a store fencing stolen goods, it isn’t censorship, but when those stolen goods are fenced online, it is? Wikipedia, Google and others manufactured controversy by unfairly equating SOPA with censorship. They also argued misleadingly that the bills would have required Web sites to “monitor” what their users upload, conveniently ignoring provisions like the “No Duty to Monitor” section."
The 1:1 equation of piracy to theft is enough of a debate. If we want to get technical, no "stolen goods" are being fenced online. There is not a 1:1 loss from a pirated item online. Second, there are "no need to monitor" in the bills. However, if you don't take down an offending piece of material, your entire site could be at risk to be taken down by the provisions in the bills - not exactly giving companies incentive to not monitor.
> "When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations."
Both Wikipedia and Google actually released detailed press statements expressing the dire concerns of the bills in order to justify their campaigning against it. WikiMedia even explained that Wikipedia is remaining a neutral site - but the company that owns it is just fine in presenting it's on viewpoints. A news organization should remain neutral - an owning company is free to express views and fund politicians however it wants.
> "That’s partly because “old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.”"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> "The violation of neutrality is a patent hypocrisy: these companies have long argued that Internet service providers (telecommunications and cable companies) had to be regulated under the doctrine of “net neutrality”..."
No... no, that's not really what's going on. He's attempting to make a point that could be equated to saying that the First Amendment "regulates" speech.
> "Would they have cast their clicks if they knew they were supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans?"
Um... I... what? This doesn't make any sense.
> "Indeed, it’s hackers like the group Anonymous that engage in real censorship when they stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree."
OUCH MY BRAIN. Seriously. Like, really? Are you kidding me? So we're... trying to say that by stopping organizations and laws who's entire goal will result in mass censorship... we're the ones offending free speech? MY LOGIC IS BLEEDING.
> "Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with constructive alternatives."
Steam, Origin, NetFlix, iTunes, Hulu, many proposed music alternatives, there have been plenty of alternatives proposed by lots of companies and private organizations. And they've all been rejected because the big media companies don't want to give up the stranglehold of distribution they have.
> "We all share the goal of a safe and legal Internet."
"Safe and legal" doesn't exactly sound like "free and open" to me. Kind of ominous, really. Man, the more I think about "safe and legal" the more that really just sounds incredibly awkward and dark.
The meme about "you wouldn't download a car" is about to get real, as "hardware ecologies" become automated and open sourced. 3D printers typically print one or a few types of materials, as do CNC and other industrial machines. So any single one of them can't make all it's own parts. A group of them, however, can make all or most of each others parts, similar to how natural ecologies are a complete cycle. So given an open sourced starter set of such machines, and downloadable plans, they can copy themselves as well as produce end items like a car. This does to hardware what has already happened to software and digital media. If you think the mainstream media howling about copying things is loud, wait till it happens to the hardware side of things.
They're deluded into thinking that they're the good guys. Chris Dodd wouldn't have offered Obama a bribe on national television if he thought there was something wrong with it. I am sure it never occured to him, even for a microsecond, that it would appear improper to the rest of us.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I do agree with the general point, although Beck does spin it.
In general, even if you usually disagree with someone, you can usually find a few things to agree on.
This from another right-wing pundit: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/08/bill-oreilly-compares-pressure-to-fire-ellen-degeneres-for-being-gay-to-mccarthyism-video/
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Nuff Said.
-Dave Haynie
Lying by omission is NOT lying, so long as all the statements are factually correct. It's usually impossible, or at least improbable, to provide all relevant or pertinent data and points. If someone intentionally leaves out parts that may alter your impressions and choices regarding it with intent to do so, that's part of persuasion, but it's still not lying.
(I am not a lawyer)
try doing that in a trial; both the judge and the other side's lawyers will/should take issue with it. The judge would represent some standard of neutrality/fairness, the other lawyers would represent an opposite bias. Both are ways to deal with bias.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
someone should shoot him between the eyes. seriously. die already. no one wants your molecules in existence.
to me, the big point of Nineteen Eighty Four was a warning about political abuse of language
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Completeness is far more useful than "lack of bias".
Perhaps you are unique, but in practice, completeness increases the acceptance of incorrect information. When you give "fair and balanced" exposure to the Flat Earth Society, then people begin to think that there may be something to that Flat Earth idea. Further, that the "other" networks don't give equal time to a provably false idea is proof that Flat Earth is true and it's a conspiracy to keep the truth from us.
Learn to love Alaska
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The RIAA's basic case has always been 'if you let the consumer make copies of our work we will lose money'. Every new device that allows copying of an RIAA-client's material has been lambasted as the work of pirating miscreants who want to undermine the fabric of American commerce. And you know what? They were right, every time. From cassette tapes to VCRs to CD burners and MP3 rippers right up to DVD and Blue-Ray copiers, every single device has eaten into their bottom line. Progressively the RIAA has made and supported a case that if people can make copies of works then we will go broke.
They are correct.
It doesn't matter.
They are content distributors, nothing more. Sure they make some content but their main money making efforts are distribution and promotion. The RIAA members missed the boat every single time an innovation appeared and they missed the boat on the internet, too. What do people who miss the boat want most? They want the boat to come back so they can get on. They can't. That ship has sailed.
History will remember that RIAA members who did not embrace change as footnotes and the laws they created as akin to those requiring flag waivers to run ahead of automobiles when passing through towns. That we live in a time when the laws are written is an aggravation. That anyone takes this seriously is a puzzle. Everyone calm down and go back to the real reason we are all o the internet:
Porn.
I'm among the top pioneer against SOPA and such bills since it make no sense in our current lives, but I got to agree with the "RIAA Chief" because propaganda was even worse on the anti-SOPA side than on the pro-SOPA side.
But a lie of omission is still a lie. Don't you watch Star Trek? What makes a lie is not what you say, but what you communicate. That is a matter of semantics, and in turn is a matter of agreed-upon interpretations. We all know what the meaning of "is" is, you do not get to have your own little interpretation of "is", it means what people assume it means. Sex is sex to most people no matter which orifices were involved.
Charles Dickens, writing in 1838:
He goes on to enlarge at some length on the "pirates" metaphor.
To attribute it to the RIAA is to credit them with far too much creativity.
Fuck the RIAA!
The divisions that handle copyright enforcement: aren't they working themselves right out of a job? What happens when they succeed in eliminating all means of "pirating" their bosses' intellectual property?
I can't remember who said it first, but I remember hearing something along the following lines:
"The media really screwed up when they called it 'music piracy'. Everyone wants to be a pirate. If they'd called it 'music faggotry' we'd all still be buying CDs."
Did you read those citations included by the OED? All of them from 1770 on are clearly talking about piracy of intellectual property (1770 refers to an edition of a book, 1855 to an invention, 1886 to harm caused to publishers, 1977 to records).
where media companies are as much concerned about not short changing content creators as they would like us to show about them not getting short changed.
Someone told something concerning something. Some other person has expressed something about it. Something will happen or not, we have no opinion about it.
The air does not belong to you, nor have you paid for it. Stop breathing immediately, you communist swine!
Whereas if you make us code for a company for free, they WILL make money from our work.
But I guess you just want to call everyone else an asshole.
See my previous comments on this topic. Just saying.
Personally I'd rather have Google and Wikipedia using their net presence to assert their _bias_ than the MPAA or RIAA buying our politicians to enact legislation favorable to them but detrimental to the rest of us. Besides, when you have a government that can reach across international borders (MegaUpload) to shut down websites without due process of law, SOPA and PIPA seem redundant. Hey Congress: Our Constitution... remember that? Anyone? Anyone?
So you are basically saying that "bad ideas need to be kept from the proles"?
Everyone else is just that stupid.
Fascinating.
Given that you can use ancient methods to measure the shape and diameter of the planet, your fixation on Flat Earthers is especially funny.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It has only caught on in sound bites from MAFIAA, therefore I don't accept the redefinition.
Um, it's what software pirates were calling themselves back in the '80s. So whether you accept it doesn't really matter.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
depend upon YOURSELF to filter out the bias, depend on no source to do that for you
Take out the word "media", and this is true across the board.
So you are basically saying that "bad ideas need to be kept from the proles"?
Nope. I never said anything like that.
Learn to love Alaska
I have a sure fire way to get rid of all this garbage legislation and fix the root of the piracy issue. All of these entities that are pushing these flawed attempts at fixing a problem they invented are looking at this all wrong. Instead of paying all these millions of dollars to lobbyists, influence peddlers and elected officials, they should send the money directly to us, the end user. Why would we pirate anything if we were getting the money that is wasted on these forms of influence buying. We're not talking chump change here. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Per year. If the gave each of us a million dollars up front, and a percentage of the same amount they are spending right now, we would each gladly promised to honor their intellectual properties. But with the following proviso, like I'm sure the people they are giving the money to right now make obvious to them, they have to keep the money flowing. I think that it will save money in the long run, boost the economy and clear our law books of unenforceable statutes.
Also:
First time submitter shoutingloudly writes
Unknown Lamer is kind of the wrong person to blame, he just approved the submission.