SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
takyon
on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:30AM
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
Not too long ago both Rand and Ron Paul were pushing a copyright maximalist agenda. Today the chickens have come home to roost. Rand Paul's presidential announcement has been blocked by a copyright claim from Warner Music Group due to a clip of a song used in the announcement. Even more apropos of the (less and less as time goes by) libertarian-leaning Republican candidate, it wasn't a DMCA takedown raining on his parade, but the purely private ContentID system that Youtube put in place in order to appease the copyright cartel.
Here is a transcript of Rand Paul's announcement.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Rand Paul Censored by Youtube ContentID Copyright Enforcement System
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Life is to you a dashing and bold adventure.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 08 2015, @09:47PM
Considering the Pauls were both instrumental in the fight against SOPA and PIPA
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:25PM
Understand the start of sentence two.
Their objections to those bills had nothing to do with limiting copyright and everything to do with limiting government control of the internet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:44AM
And I'll point out here that the Obama administration is more aggressive in creating and enforcing intellectual property rights (since they aren't shy about backing their schemes with government power) and recently they backed off (at least temporarily) on blocking net neutrality. They don't get labeled with these silly names. No one, aside from the *IAA players, are solely focused on creating more powerful copyrights and other intellectual property (which is what "copyright maximalist" implies). Everyone else has other priorities and can be influenced by engaging them in these other priorities.
Moving on, there is a profound malicious ignorance displayed by the submitter of the article which is far too common. Libertarianism is an inherently unpopular belief system. The rationalizations for pension funds, health care, and most government activity is many decades old and has been rather effective for most of that time. People would rather just have their stuff.
Libertarianism has grown popular in the US because of the state of the US, particularly, its government. Libertarianism and the Rands have consistently been against the worst abuses of the US government of the past two or three decades. They've been against institutionalized torture; the Wars on Drugs, Terrorism, and Evil; bailouts of businesses which heavily favor the wealthy; open-ended and rather sloppy spying on everyone; and the various legislative attempts to create strangleholds on intellectual property. The bizarre thing here is that there should be plenty of natural though very temporary allies for libertarianism, namely, everyone who is concerned that the dilution of US spending on stuff that is an actual purpose of government combined with government overreach is going to harm all the stuff that they want the US government to be doing. Instead, we get this incredibly childish assaults on libertarians while ignoring the primary reason that libertarians are libertarians, namely, that the US government is way out of control and getting worse.
Drain this swamp and the libertarians would be vastly diminished. But so many people are completely against this obvious remedy. What's going to happen in a few decades to a society which has a government that places a higher priority on spying on the entire planet than having a viable future? I think it'll just be a looted police state shell by then, unless we do something about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:15AM
> I don't care what the motives were.
If you don't care about the motives of politicians then you have no clue how they will govern.
> I merely pointed out that the assertion that the Rands were "copyright maximalists" was false just from a cursory and false reading of the article.
FTFY.
> And I'll point out here that the Obama administration is more aggressive in creating and enforcing intellectual property rights
Utterly fucking irrelevant to the issue that the Pauls are copyright maximalists.
The rest of your post seems to be irrelevant sophistry in the service of protecting your ego for having made a 180-degree error in characterizing Rand Paul's attitude towards copyright.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @04:40AM
If you don't care about the motives of politicians then you have no clue how they will govern.
That's irrelevant to the discussion and not something that I see practiced seriously or consistently in real life. Where's the similar concern for current and past presidents' motives or the current crop of likely candidates on the Democrat or Republican sides? This is a game that's been played before. Someone like Obama, a Clinton, or a Bush gets a free pass from a large portion of US voters while the Rands get put under a microscope. If the politicians who were actually likely to get elected were subject to the same analysis by their supporters, then I think the US would have a very solid democracy. But that doesn't happen.
Utterly fucking irrelevant to the issue that the Pauls are copyright maximalists.
Except to note the on-topic obvious, someone is concern-trolling about the Pauls' supposed copyright maximalist tendencies, but not an actual government's even stronger, copyright maximalist tendencies.
The rest of your post seems to be irrelevant sophistry in the service of protecting your ego for having made a 180-degree error in characterizing Rand Paul's attitude towards copyright.
Not to me. Nor did I make the error you accuse me of.