MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns 300
An anonymous reader writes "The EFF has gone into detail about why it opposes 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act,' or COICA. It has the potential to give the Department of Justice the power to shut down any domestic website, or block any foreign website it so chooses, setting the stage for Internet censorship in the United States. Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Bloodsucker (Score:5, Insightful)
Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"
Well, of course he would say that. The reality is that the First Amendment was not intended to be dismissed so lightly by a cartel composed entirely of bloodsucking leeches.
He's right (Score:5, Insightful)
And the ??AA is stealing our cultural legacy. They deserve no constitutional or legal protection.
Stop Draconian Restriction Mechanisms whether they are technological or political.
Well then Pisano just proved... (Score:5, Insightful)
... that if their proposed legislation attacks free speech as a consequence of trying to fight piracy, then they haven't engineered said legislation properly. He is right that the first amendment isn't a shield for those who steal and any sane legislation wouldn't change that fact.
This is really starting to get raw (Score:5, Insightful)
Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"
That's how Mr. Pisano "addresses" free speech concerns? By dismissing them? I have news for you, bub ... you aren't speaking for the Founding Fathers when you mouth that garbage. The reality is, the First Amendment was not intended to be dismissed so lightly by what are essentially foreign-owned criminal cartels illegally extending their influence into our Federal Government.
Jack said it best ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
Bob should just say this again, but replace VCR with Internet.
I'm sure glad the MPAA is here to tell me what the Founding Fathers intended!
Re:Bloodsucker (Score:4, Insightful)
That's right. It was intended to be dismissed by a totally submissive public. Mission Accomplished...
Hey... (Score:1, Insightful)
I suggest you toddle on over to http://mpaa.org/contentprotection/report-piracy [mpaa.org] and report the MPAA fucks for pirating our freedom of speech.
Re:Mr. Bob, (Score:5, Insightful)
Please also review the 14th amendment and the concept of due process.
Counter (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law was not intended as a shield for those who censor, irrespective of the motive.
Re:You can't steal from corporations (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, like stealing from business owners and stockholders. Which is what you're doing when you steal from companies. You can pretend you're ripping off just Bill Gates when you pirate Windows, but he is "people" too. Plenty of employees have gone to jail for crimes committed for the company, most often the CxOs. Plenty business owners trying to hide behind their business have gone to jail for their crimes. Maybe more get away with crap than they should, but that damn well true of real people too.
Re:Bloodsucker (Score:5, Insightful)
Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"
A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.
Re:Pisano ducked the question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pisano is INcorrect in saying "the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means". The First Amendment was/is intended as a shield for any US Citizen irrespective of their means. The First Amendment still applies to people that have committed a crime.
Re:This is really starting to get raw (Score:5, Insightful)
essentially foreign-owned criminal cartels illegally extending their influence into our Federal Government.
The problem is they are doing it legally. It's up to the people to fight it and convince politicians it's not in their best interest to accept **AA party lines or BS, and that we don't want it.
The MPAA is stealing my rights. Shut it down. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Supreme Court,
Based upon the willful actions of the MPAA they have stolen my rights away.
I respectfully request that a immediate injunction is placed on their website, lawyers, and letterhead.
I furthermore request that all assets and IP be transferred to me from hence forth to compensate for damages suffered upon my intangible asset of known as rights.
I also request compensatory damages in the amount of 25 trillion dollars be paid to FRAA to be distributed to each of the 310 million American Citizens at a rate of 79,000 per infringement ( based on the tenabaum case of 79k per song infringement awarded. )
Sincerly,
FRAA
Free Rights Association of America
Re:You can't steal from corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts say they can take away your constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search while flying too.
Doesn't mean they're right.
Re:Mr. Bob, (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, since you are obviously a Constitutional scolar, which of the several Amendments guarantees corporate profits or states that the Congress shall act to protect said profits?
Steal doesn't apply to imaginary things (Score:2, Insightful)
And steal was not intended to describe theft of imaginary things.
Re:Jack said it best ... (Score:3, Insightful)
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
Bob should just say this again, but replace VCR with Internet.
I'm sure glad the MPAA is here to tell me what the Founding Fathers intended!
Replace "Internet" with "any technology that we don't happen to like."
Re:Pisano ducked the question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pisano is INcorrect in saying "the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means". The First Amendment was/is intended as a shield for any US Citizen irrespective of their means. The First Amendment still applies to people that have committed a crime.
Yes. You may not be able to vote ... but you can still speak. The fundamental problem here is that law enforcement and the courts have, quite unreasonably in my opinion, failed to connect the dots. Information published on the Internet is still speech, even if the communications technology did not exist in the Founder's time. This attempt to create a false dichotomy between online activities and traditional physical activities is a smoke screen, no more and no less.
Re:Bloodsucker (Score:5, Insightful)
Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"
A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.
Yeah. And if he keeps it up, he may find himself on the unemployment line, just like the ex-CEO of BP talked himself out of a job. They aren't even trying to make their rhetoric sound palatable anymore. "Your much-vaunted 'free speech' means nothing to us, and if we can destroy it in order to regain control of content distribution, we will. So, here's a hearty 'Fuck YOU!', America!" Now, that's exactly how you would expect a bunch of foreign-owned corporations to think ... I'm just surprised they're being that open about it. Well, they aren't: it's their paid mouthpieces (the RIAA and the MPAA) that are spewing this garbage on their behalf.
So, the next time you buy a DVD with Sony, Time Warner, Vivendi, Viacom or the name of any of the other major studios printed on the side, remember who you have to thank for it. This is no longer about shutting down torrent sites or suing file-sharers. This is about the ongoing destruction of the Supreme Law of our Land by foreign influences. Remember that when the Feds start blocking your favorite Web sites because some lawyer at the "Justice Department", or some member of Congress who just had his infidelity exposed, has them blacklisted.
Remember also that the top slots at the Justice Department are filled by ex-RIAA attorneys. They aren't going to fight this for you, they're not even going to register a complaint. This is about as direct an attack on the Constitution as we've seen in recent years. And yes, even if signed into law, it may very well be eventually struck down, but this is how they operate. Remember, they always ask for something completely unreasonable, fully expecting to fail, and then they ask for a law that is somewhat less obnoxious (but still awful) but which seems positively benign in comparison.
Stealing? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are they stealing? Certainly not the product itself, as they're merely copying that and depriving no one of it. Merely having the product itself, then, is irrelevant.
He must mean "potential profit," then. For one thing, basic logic states that for you to be able to steal something, it must first exist (potential profit doesn't exist). Second of all, if it was possible to steal potential profit, everyone in existence would be 'guilty' of doing so. You 'steal' potential profit merely by choosing not to give someone your money for whatever reason or by interfering with someones flow of profits. This effectively means that not buying a product from a store, for example, means that you 'stole' potential profit from the store. The store would have had more money if you would have given it to them and therefore would have been better off, which means, like a 'pirate' apparently does to artists (going by their logic), you have 'harmed' a legitimate business, and as such, people.
Artificial scarcity is bad. Don't blame the 'pirates' (who aren't taking anything or harming anyone) for a system that has been broken since the beginning, as this is merely putting the blame on someone who has nothing to do with it. You might as well blame everyone in existence. Instead, try to fix this broken system. But we all know that won't happen, as that would interfere with their flow of profits.
Also, they never described how (going by their logic, of course) websites that merely talk positively about 'piracy' (but don't contain any torrents or copyrighted materials) are 'stealing'. Funny, that.
This law will pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is why:
1) The democratic congress is a lame duck congress. They are looking for new jobs. They have nothing to lose, and the senate is still democrat controlled.
2) The democratic party has a long standing unspoken agreement with the entertainment industry. (Much like the GOP has a similar agreement with big oil, and big biz.)
3) The incumbant congress wont pass up on the windfall that this gives them; With one side of their mouth, they would state that they would never propose such legislation, with the other they will happily enforce and use said legislation. Such action has been the de-facto norm for at least 2 decades now.
4) The supreme court will bend over backwards to support this measure, and pull the constitution through a knothole backwards to make it fit, for similar interest reasons.
5) The government in general LIKES the idea of draconian IP protection, BECAUSE it makes an end-run around that nasty first amendment; AND because the US has pretty much NO real tangible goods exports in the world market other than food stuffs (which as the 2nd world rises to prominence, is becoming less and less profitable.), and as such, it sees the handwriting on the wall if it doesnt take drastic measures to keep a firm grip on the reigns of invention and ideas. "IP" and "Patents" are just about the only profitable things left in the US, and they go bye-bye if corporations leave. The corporations use this fact to control the US government. This is what it means by "Too big to fail."-- it means that the government cannot afford to have them go under, because if they did, the government wouldnt have anything to replace the income/bargaining power in the world market with.
Thus, even if this bill is shot down, it will be reintroduced silently as a rider, and passed later.
The ONLY way to make this bill NEVER pass, is if a French Revolution-style mob descended upon Hollywood, while simultaneously, on the other side of the country, another angry mob did the same in DC. The people have no power in this matter; they have delegated it to government, and government is complicit in the crime. You cannot expect to get justice from a corrupt constabulary. That leaves ONLY vigilante-ism.
As the founding fathers demonstrated, the intrinsic power of the people, is the power of the people to revolt. That's the reason for the second amendment, and the reason for much of the rhetoric of Jefferson and Co. in the federalist papers. Voting is a proxy for that power, to channel it into a less destructive force for change in government. However, when voting has been rendered useless, the only recourse left is violence.
So, unless you think you can organize such a revolt, (or even a passive one, ghandi-style,) this bill will pass, the MAFIAA *WILL* get what it wants, and we WILL get bent over the barrel by both them AND our government, and we will be ridden, and ridden, and ridden.
[Note: For those that think that violence never solves anything, Tell me-- what power do you think you as a voter have over a lame-duck congress, which is demonstrating that it doesn't care about your interests? They are going out the door anyway, and your vote does not have the power to put them in jail, or to stop them in any way.]
Welcome to the USA-- Where everyone is equal, but some 'persons' are more equal than others.
Re:Mr. Bob, (Score:2, Insightful)
Devil's advocate: those do in fact include copyright.
They also include operating the Post Office. That doesn't mean Congress can pass a law requiring the Post Office not to carry your mail if you're a member of the Pirate Party.
Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Boy am I tired of refuting these bald faced lies. Forgive me if you've only swallowed them.
If musicians find that they always lose in their speculation that enough people will pay for their art to cover the one-time cost of producing it - due to everyone copying it for $0 and not paying them
That's a complete and utter fallacy that's been disproved time and time again. Studies have shown the "pirates" spend more money on music than non-pirates. A study done by a book publisher to find out how much revenue he was losing to piracy showed that rather than a drop in sales after the books hit the net, there was a sales spike.
Rather than costing the industry money, it's making money for them.
Nobody has ever lost money to noncommercial piracy, but many artists have had to find different carrers because of obscurity. The RIAA artists have radio and want the internet gone because their competetion, indie bands, don't have radio and rely on the internet.
Here's how piracy hurts the RIAA label: Pirate DLs RIAA Band A and Indie Band B. He has a $20 budget for music. Ban A's music is stale, commercial, and uninspired while Ban B's music is fresh, exciting, different, and listenable. Who is Mr Pirate going to spend his music budget on?
Piracy only hurts artists that suck. Quality always sells.
Now stop spreading the MAFIAA's bullshit. You now know better, any more posts from you saying "if you can get it for free you won't buy it" can only be trolling. So please stop it.