Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the didn't-we-make-it-clear-enough-last-time? dept.

EFF - As Hollywood Funds a SOPA Revival Through State Officials, Google (And The Internet) Respond

Almost three years ago, millions of Internet users joined together to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a disastrous bill that would have balkanized the Internet in the name of copyright and trademark enforcement. Over the past week, we've been tracking a host of revelations about an insidious campaign to accomplish the goals of SOPA by other means. The latest development: Google has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of an overbroad and punitive subpoena seeking an extraordinary quantity of information about the company and its users. The subpoena, Google warns, is based on legal theories that could have disastrous consequences for the open Internet.

The subpoena was issued after months of battles between Google and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood. According to the lawsuit, Hood has been using his office to pressure Google to restrict content accessible through the search engine. Indeed, among other things, he sought "a “24-hour link through which attorneys general[]” can request that links to particular websites be removed from search results "within hours,” presumably without judicial review or an opportunity for operators of the target websites to be heard." As Google states, "The Attorney General may prefer a pre-filtered Internet—but the Constitution and Congress have denied him the authority to mandate it."

The subpoena itself is bad enough, but here's what's really disturbing: the real force behind it appears to be the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which has been quietly supporting state-level prosecutors in various efforts to target the company and the open Internet. The clear aim of that campaign—dubbed "Project Goliath" in MPAA emails made public through the recent high profile breach of Sony's corporate network—is to achieve the goals of the defeated SOPA blacklist proposal without the public oversight of the legislative process. Previously, Google had responded with a sharply worded notice and a petition titled #ZombieSOPA.

To be clear though: Google may be the target today, but the real target is the open Internet, which depends on free and uncensored platforms to survive. Any campaign to censor the Internet is cause for concern—and a secret one is all the more so. The public has clearly and unambiguously denounced the SOPA effort; it's shameful to see its backers try to revive its goals by dodging the scrutiny of the democratic process.

Also reported at Ars Technica -
Tech groups send Miss. AG a “friendly reminder” about how bad SOPA was
Mississippi AG backs off Google investigation pushed by MPAA
Google moves to halt investigation by Mississippi AG, cites MPAA lobbying

Related Stories

Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign 23 comments

Earlier this month, [TechDirt] noted that the Hollywood studios were all resisting subpoenas from Google concerning their super cozy relationship with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose highly questionable "investigation" of Google appeared to actually be run by the MPAA and the studios themselves. The entire "investigation" seemed to clearly be an attempt to mislead the public into believing that it was somehow illegal for Google's search engine to find stuff that people didn't like online. A court has already ruled that Hood pretty clearly acted in bad faith to deprive Google of its First Amendment rights. As the case has continued, Google has sought much more detail on just how much of the investigation was run by the MPAA and the studios -- and Hollywood has vigorously resisted, claiming that they really had nothing to do with all of this, which was a laughable assertion.

However, in a filing on Thursday, Google revealed one of the few emails that they have been able to get access to so far, and it's stunning.

To read some of the content of the e-mail (which really is stunning, if only for how openly the MPAA is doing this), read more here: TechDirt article

takyon: Dec. 12: Google Ends MPAA Anti-Piracy Cooperation
Dec. 23: As Hollywood Funds a SOPA Revival Through State Officials, Google (And The Internet) Respond
Jul. 3: Google Scolds MPAA on Cozy Relationship With the Mississippi Attorney General


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dlb on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:27PM

    by dlb (4790) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:27PM (#128706)
    These attacks on basic liberties by corporations gets tiresome. At least for me. But defending ourselves against such attacks is where freedom comes from. The constitution is just a piece of paper. If we want liberty, we have to be willing to defend it. Continuously. And it's not the "grab a gun and get the bad guy" kind of thing. It's a matter of rolling up one's sleeves and engaging in a life-long participation in the political process of deciding who will run the government. And I agree that it is not a level playing field...but I doubt it ever was.

    My take on it....
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:43PM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:43PM (#128710)

      peaceful means don't work. we tried that for a few decades and it stopped working. the 'leaders' are now pre-selected by corporate interests and if we pick A or B, its still a sugardaddy for corporations.

      I do fear, and say with a heavy heart, that working the system THRU the system has failed to work and we need to consider stepping up the intensity (read that however you want) since what we have tried just is not working. it can't work. its broken by design.

      no amount of 'voting' will fix this. but keep thinking that it will. that IS what they want you to think.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:54PM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:54PM (#128715) Journal

        Stop patronizing the corporations that rape you.
        You can't stop the Federal government from shoveling billions at these parasites and predators - but STOP paying to listen to corp music. STOP paying to watch the THIRD Spiderman reboot in 8 years.
        STOP.

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
        • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:13PM

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:13PM (#128719)

          for me, I did stop. I have not bought music for well over a decade. I have not gone to a movie in more than that.

          but we are the minority. sheeple still think that by playing the game by the rules, they have a chance of winning.

          (poor fools; the game can't be won by playing fair. this much we know.)

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @09:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @09:43PM (#128773)

          You know what happens when enough of us stop buying from those corporations?

          They run to the law makers, screaming 'PIRACY!' You can't possibly be not buying because you're angry with them. YOU'RE NOT BUYING BECAUSE YOU'RE A FILTHY PIRATE!

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @11:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @11:19PM (#128792)

        What a big huge pile of horseshit. The system is set up very nicely to change it when the public wants to change it, because it was set up by guys who actually did change things. You get either Kane or Kodos because most people are content to have it that way. Sorry the multitude is not as smart as you obviously are; may you continue to grace our internet with your wisdom [xkcd.com]. Yeah, great, lets all take up arms and start a big ruckus and all follow self-proclaimed geniuses like you to tell us how to live our lives. You want change? Then make change. It starts from the bottom up. Get out there, run for office, or support someone you want to get elected. Get people motivated. Change people's thoughts and opinions. Convince them why there should be a change beyond waiving your arms around and sounding like a bratty adolescent not getting their way. But you know what? It isn't easy, and it isn't supposed to be easy, but it is a hell of a lot more effort than you're willing to put out. You're probably one of those dipshits who not only doesn't vote, but is proud of the fact that you don't.

        Read your Federalist Papers (62):

        From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.

        You know all that BS quoting Thomas Jefferson and the tree of liberty like you're saying something profound? STFU. Jefferson, Franklin, and all those guys put the effort in, put it on the line, and spent a great deal of their time and wealth doing it right. And it took a long time. You know what's harder than actually going out and putting the effort in? Convincing people to rise up in arms against a government that provides them relative prosperity and a decent standard of living.

        • (Score: 1) by FunkyLich on Wednesday December 24 2014, @12:16AM

          by FunkyLich (4689) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @12:16AM (#128802)

          I do not mind people curating their own government by whatever fashion they so wish.
          What bothers me is when some government, any government, which has been elected by the people of its respective nation, tries to shove the governing logic of its nation up the arses of all humans - aka nations - on this planet. You see, there are a lot of people on this world - even here on SN - who do not need red lettered sticky notes reading "Here be commies" on the part of the world map which represents Russia, for example.

        • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 24 2014, @01:48AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @01:48AM (#128811)

          may you continue to grace our internet with your wisdom.

          Possessing average intelligence is equivalent to being an idiot, then. We have no reliable way to measure intelligence.

          Averages are meaningless in this context. What matters is how intelligent someone is overall, something we don't currently know how to measure.

          But you know what? It isn't easy, and it isn't supposed to be easy

          It could be a lot easier if we didn't have an awful system that guarantees there will be two major parties. It should be easier, and especially so in cases where the government is blatantly ignoring the constitution. Making it difficult for people to challenge the government just results in the government grabbing more and more power, as we're seeing now.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday December 24 2014, @04:57AM

          by edIII (791) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @04:57AM (#128838)

          You're probably one of those dipshits who not only doesn't vote, but is proud of the fact that you don't.

          Consider me one the "dipshits" then. I've NEVER voted, which I could feel intense pride in. However, it's not pride, but the realization that all such efforts are absolutely futile . Your rant about geniuses telling you how to live aside, you haven't addressed the real issues at all. The democratic process is fundamentally broken, and has stopped working. If your rant were to be true, it would represent that America isn't dead.

          Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

          We flatlined some time ago. The democratic process only works when we are healthy and active and that those in the top are on the same page as us. Since nobody at the top acts, lives, or breathes with any patriotism towards our American ideals, this means that (following the analogy) that the brain is dead, dying, and suffering from dementia that results in violent outbursts hurting the ones around us (CIA torture). It is absolutely pointless, and a waste of our precious energies to be giving anything towards government, the political processes, or corporations that have been identified to act in ways we understand to be evil with simple common sense. If we want a real world analogy here folks, putting your energy into politics is like the bittersweet and devastating journey of someone with a loved one suffering from drug addiction. At some point, for some people, we realize that it's better to just jettison them from our lives. They lie and steal from us, and just like a junkie, are sometimes responsible for death in the pursuit of their own crapulence. Those in politics claim to love us, but just like worthless addicts, only hurt those they love. Their protestations of patriotism fall on deaf ears in the lights of their persistent actions in the 20 years I've been an adult.

          You want change? Then make change. It starts from the bottom up. Get out there, run for office, or support someone you want to get elected. Get people motivated. Change people's thoughts and opinions. Convince them why there should be a change beyond waiving your arms around and sounding like a bratty adolescent not getting their way.

          That's ego. You think that you are that genius yourself, so go run for politics. It's your ego to think that you could possibly change that system from the inside. You're not a superhero, and if elected, you're walking into Mordor. There might be some nice people that came there for good intentions, but at some point, they all just seem to submit to that damned glowing eye.

          All of that passion, all of your lifeforce, all of your energies, simply wasted. Built up with your energy, and dissipated in such a way, it's as if you never cared in the first place. That's not hyerbole, that's just measuring performance.

          But you know what? It isn't easy, and it isn't supposed to be easy, but it is a hell of a lot more effort than you're willing to put out.

          In this, we are in absolute agreement. It's *really* hard to just drop out, not advocate for anger and the ruckus, and to attempt to achieve goals through peaceful resolution. I'm taking a cue from Gandhi on this one. I've begun my great starvation, as it's not easy to refuse to support Hollywood, the music industry, and many major corporations that are just omnipresent. It's take sacrifice and suffering to speak so loudly with your wallet. I'm not alone in that on this site. Many users around here commonly express the same sentiment of voting with the wallet. Well then recognize us for our sacrifice at least, and stop claiming we are entitled brats in the thralls of consumerism.

          You're right. It's very hard. I'm on strike myself, and I refuse to vote, or to do anything at all in the occupying 1%'s world. All of my energies and efforts are retained for grass roots efforts and making sure that new companies like Purism [soylentnews.org] are getting my support. It's a strange relationship too, as since I'm on strike I have no money, but I'm willing to give the resources that I have left away to those that would do good with it.

          That's the truly sad part. Politics is flatlined, our media lies to us (Fox faking news footage to incite violence), our corporations and economy are hijacked by deeply unethical and sociopathic people (Cheney thinks 1 in 4 people dying from intelligence programs being innocent is okay). I applaud you for having the optimism to believe in such a flawed system and the potential of it all, but your optimism is baseless. In fact, your optimism is largely similar to the optimism of the Creationists convincing us all of the truth of the 6,000 year old blue planet.

          I'll admit that I don't currently know what I am doing, but I know what I am not doing. I'm not giving one iota of energy back into a system that only serves to abuse us. Just like your message is to get active, so is mine. I'll be that autistic genius that just has to say it. Let's form a second civilization in the same way Second Life is Second Life. It may sound childish, but I'm literally saying we turn off all the news channels when they speak politics, and we just ignore all of our senators. It will be a great day when there are only 7 votes, and those left in politics look around stupidly wondering what to do when the illusion of the public mandate dissipates and they see themselves as the pigs who would walk on two legs.

          We have all of the technologies and very smart and gifted people necessary to organize ourselves, and essentially treat government, corporations, and politics as what it truly is: A cancer in the body, heart, and soul of America . It will still exist, we still have to comply with the practicalities of having cancer, but we start with our road to treatment. I see the only hope of our prosperity being to rise up in spite of their existence. Sometimes when we are sick, we need to be in pain and suffer to get better. That's your sacrifice. That's the hard road you've ranted we all take.

          I'm on chemo, and I'm surviving. Would be nice if some other people joined me, but that's easy to do without going to my extremes. Just stop being a consumer when it only supports terrorism. That's the little steps. You don't have to go full blown chemo like me, but at least finally recognize you have the cancer in the first place. You're in denial AC.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by metamonkey on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:08PM

      by metamonkey (3174) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:08PM (#128717)

      I was thinking the same thing. "My god, are we doomed to fight the same fights over and over and over again?" The free and open Internet is unlikely to survive (it's already mortally wounded since the DMCA).

      Take down notices. Surveillance. Attacks on net neutrality. UK porn filters. Physical raids on servers.

      It'll be death by a thousand cuts. Every government and every corporation looks at the Internet and says "look at all those people connected to this thing...let's change the rules and fuck with it we can get more money and power." And we have to win every. Single. Battle. Because once freedoms are lost, they don't come back. They'll never scrap the DMCA. They'll never stop spying. And they'll never stop trying to ram SOPA through or construct a tiered Internet.

      It's exhausting.

      --
      Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
      • (Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:30PM

        by Blackmoore (57) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:30PM (#128723) Journal

        I think i want to start a kickstarter- with the intention of strapping an engine onto a big damn asteroid and propel it into the Yellowstone Caldera.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by forsythe on Tuesday December 23 2014, @07:01PM

        by forsythe (831) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @07:01PM (#128734)

        Because once freedoms are lost, they don't come back. They'll never scrap the DMCA.

        I'd be willing to pay some cash to an organization whose purpose was to continually attempt to repeal these. Maybe if their lawyers were tied up lobbying against repealing DMCA every week, they'd have less time to lobby for SOPA & co.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday December 24 2014, @05:33AM

          by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @05:33AM (#128849)

          Won't work.

          They would just hire more lawyers to fight the your lawyers and any actual court battles (and do everything to stall them) and the regular lobbyists, who are not lawyers to begin with, would just continue business as usual.

          "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
          John F. Kennedy

          --
          "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
        • (Score: 1) by koja on Wednesday December 24 2014, @04:04PM

          by koja (3832) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @04:04PM (#128932)

          I concluded my thoughts on this theme by supporting EFF.

  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday December 23 2014, @08:06PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @08:06PM (#128752) Journal

    Big Media just doesn't learn. The wannabe hoarders and taxers of knowledge stick to their wrong and untenable positions harder and more fervently than Creationists stick to Creationism. Must be the greed. They have not dared to try to shut down public libraries, used book and record stores, and schools, but I would not be surprised to hear that they wish they could.

    Sharing of knowledge is a natural right. We can't educate our children if we can't share knowledge. Can't discriminate between bits of knowledge. I wonder if the US needs a Constitutional Amendment to settle the matter once and for all, a Freedom of Knowledge Amendment, to put knowledge up there as no less important than the 1st Amendment protections of speech, religion, and assembly. And, as copyright and patent are in the Constitution, repealing and abolishing them will take nothing less than an Amendment.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday December 23 2014, @09:30PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday December 23 2014, @09:30PM (#128769)

      Actually, the US constitution merely gives the government the power to have copyright, patents, etc.; it does not say that they're required. So technically, abolishing them probably wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, but that would be the best way to make sure they stay gone.

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday December 24 2014, @05:07AM

        by edIII (791) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @05:07AM (#128843)

        Do we want them to stay gone? Why?

        The idea of copyright and patents is not intrinsically unethical. As long as we recognize it for what it is, and that's an honest attempt to reward the positive behaviors and effects of the whole process.

        As you have not proposed an alternative and expounded upon it's relationship with the default state of the Public Domain and your chosen economy, I deny your assertion that we get rid of it. Although regardless of your delivery of the solution I'm well onboard for massive reforms, and rescinding of possibly millions of patents. We clean house, hard. Whatever remains truly deserved it.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 24 2014, @01:48PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @01:48PM (#128903)

          Do we want them to stay gone? Why?

          I do, since copyright infringes upon free speech rights and private property rights, patents infringe upon the latter, and they both disrupt the free market. There is also no scientifically valid proof (speculation of what our culture would look like without them is not science) that they're actually effective at promoting the public good, and restrictions must not be placed upon people without at least having evidence. I would oppose them even if they were effective because I care more about freedom, but the least people could do is admit that they have no proof of their efficacy.

          As you have not proposed an alternative

          This is just bad logic. My solution is simply to get rid of copyrights and patents and see what happens, since they infringe upon our freedoms and there's no proof they're effective. Saying otherwise is dishonest.

          • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 24 2014, @01:57PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday December 24 2014, @01:57PM (#128904)

            I don't care for the logic of, "You don't have an alternative, so copyrights and patents must be good." Getting rid of them might be beneficial all by itself (or at least better), and you don't consider that possibility.

            And nor do I care for the logic of, "Let's shove through our restrictive laws without any proof that they'll do what we say they'll do, and then when someone wants to get rid of them because they infringe upon our liberties and there is no proof that they're effective, let's erroneously claim that the burden of proof is actually on them, and that they must have a valid alternative before we can do anything!" That's not how any just system should work.

        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday December 25 2014, @05:05AM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday December 25 2014, @05:05AM (#129044) Journal

          Why should we get rid of intellectual property? To put it simply, patents and copyrights are monopolies. Monopolies are bad.

          These particular kinds of monopolies are in some ways worse than a natural monopoly, as the public has to spend huge amounts of money to maintain them. Even with all the power government can bring to bear, piracy cannot be stopped. Nor should we want it stopped, as sharing of knowledge is a public good.

          The argument that we should keep them because don't have anything better is flat wrong. Our current system is so bad that improving on it is not much of a challenge. There are 2 basic alternatives: 1) nothing and 2) patronage. There are also the advertising, merchandising, and performance models. We can do patronage much, much better than in Mozart's day. We can crowdfund.

          I feel it would be best to abolish copyrights and patents, to help people accept the proposition that like speech and religion, knowledge should be freely discoverable and usable by all.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 25 2014, @06:06AM

            by edIII (791) on Thursday December 25 2014, @06:06AM (#129047)

            I never said we should keep them because we don't have anything better. You might want to re-read it. I believe there was mention of reforms and cleaning house by getting rid of bad patents out of the pool. Most of your complaints fall under reforms, which I already implicitly agreed to.

            For the rest, I'll remain unconvinced and unimpressed when all you can put forth is a few sentences. You say anything can improve it, but even with such an impressive array of choices, fail to deliver but a vague idea of patronage and a simplistic one-word example of "crowdfund". Kickstarter, and other such sites are showing us both the benefits and detractions of such an idea. Barriers to entry can be lower, but so can quality and accountability. Kickstarter is not perfect, and is an ongoing experiment.

            Until somebody comes up with a good example, we don't need to go full retard and abolish the patents and copyright systems. We can get rid of plenty of egregious stuff in copyright, and reformed patent law can greatly improve things. As for your idea of crowdfunding, nothing is stopping that currently. Unless you really mean, "let's explore crowdfunding bereft of the competition of intellectual property".

            We have a plethora of free software/open source licensing conventions, why can we not also have multiple incentive and reward systems in place? Balance out intellectual property again and maybe you won't need to feel so harsh. Abolishment is an over correction until we have a well explored solution other than what is effectively anarchy with nothing holding major corporations back at all. In your world, you would sneak a look at the profits and then be denied a place at the final table. Perhaps not much better than this one, but yours won't be better.

            As for your plea to obey universal truths, those fail to acknowledge earthly practicalities. All there need be is a strongly worded law supporting the Public Domain, and a hard and uncompromising stance on duration, and it in of itself could speak to the sanctity of free knowledge.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday December 25 2014, @07:47PM

              by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday December 25 2014, @07:47PM (#129142) Journal

              It is the concept of intellectual property that fails to acknowledge earthly practicalities. Which is that it is impractical to stop or heavily regulate piracy, and, most of all, that sharing was and is fundamental to making our world a better place. The big point of being able to talk, and discuss very sophisticated concepts, is to share knowledge. Without that, we are no better than other animals whose communications are relatively crude. We further refined our ability to communicate when we invented writing. At first, only the elite could write and read, but we decided that these skills were essential to democracy, and learned that nearly everyone could learn to read and write. The Gutenberg Press was another leap forward. Predictably, reactionary forces tried to stop or control the printing press, and unfortunately for us all enjoyed some success, for today we are stuck with a long tradition of copyright. And now, we have the Internet.

              There has been too much confusion caused by attempts to equate copyright law with property law, as in the very word "property" in the term "intellectual property". Every time someone accepts the propaganda that downloading or recording is no different than stealing, they show that something should be changed. Maybe this is good training to raise public awareness and wariness of propaganda campaigns, and we should try to heighten our awareness even more. There's a great deal of propaganda out there on many other issues. I think the best solution is abolishment.

              • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 25 2014, @09:07PM

                by edIII (791) on Thursday December 25 2014, @09:07PM (#129152)

                I see. I love this Utopia you created. Pray tell, my friend, where does one eat in this world that operates according to earthly practicalities? ;)

                That's my point. We can argue the higher concepts and ideals all day long. However, at some point, we must greatly compromise that in order to continue to eat and provide for ourselves. You wish a man to be free, have access to free knowledge everywhere, and to be able to share it. A truly noble goal, yet missing the part where in exchange for his selfless and uniquely inspired acts of creation that the rest of us visited him to tend to his farms, do his chores, and cook his meals.

                Figure out how to provide him equivalent exchange for his efforts, balance everyone else's out, and keep us with the minimums we need for our advanced society. That's why abolishment is not so simple, as you are willfully ignoring his pleas that he needs to eat with your loud speaker reminding him that he is free, and that should magically feed him.

                Fix the idea of intellectual property which is not nearly as offensive as you think it is. At it's most fundamental, stripped of the evilness you cannot tolerate, is the idea that we provide for the creators, so they in turn can provide for us. That's about equality and intelligence. So don't lecture me about evils when you just ignored the pleas of the starving artists everywhere.

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday December 26 2014, @03:18AM

                  by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday December 26 2014, @03:18AM (#129223) Journal

                  Copyright is not the only way to compensate artists. Of all the ways to do it, copyright has proven to be rather poor, actually. Patronage has worked for centuries. And now, with crowdfunding, we can do patronage better. It was patronage, not copyright, that was the basis of the development of music from folk songs transmitted orally, to the sophisticated orchestras and musical notation necessary to create and play classical music. Today, it is still patronage that is the prime support of orchestras. Most large cities support orchestras.

                  It really is impractical to enforce copyright. The only thing keeping copyright alive now is inertia and public support. It's very easy to make copies now, and it will only get easier.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @09:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @09:04PM (#128766)

    You know, and I know that you won't be doing jack OR shit to effectively change any of this!