12 ms·

Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts so

by tumult 15y ago

Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. One of these things is not like the others. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We fully support the censorship of the internet, which baffles and scares us. However, this single step may have been too drastic. Please allow us some time to find stepping stones.

kmfrk 15y ago
That press statement, to me, is a typical example of using transparency as a political tool to give citizens a false sense of participation. This is Obama's passivity during the LGBT rights activities during 2011 all over again. (Well, except that I am sure he wasn't paid to sit idly by when the LGBT movement was at its apex.) Keep calm and carry on.
- darrellsilver 15y ago
  Is this "passivity" a critique or praise of Obama? Not to go too far off-topic, but... Despite the economy and foreign policy being by far the most important issue throughout his presidency, his administration has been quite active and successful on LGBT issues. They've repealed DADT, changed the rules for LGBT in foreign service and passed Matthew Shepard hate crimes legislation. He's done all this without making LGBT issues a public spectacle, with a Congress that hates him and a public that hasn't made up its mind. It's for these reasons that HRC provides its full-throated support for Obama. Again -- I'm sorry for derailing the SOPA discussion, but we should keep our facts and impressions well-founded or our primary arguments will fall flat.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  I remember 2011, wasn't that the year when don't ask don't tell got repealed?
nl 15y ago
Sure, but you can cherry-pick other parts, too: Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security etc etc It's not a perfect statement, but real politics is about compromise. Perhaps a solution can be found so goods manufactures can have some course of action against counterfeit-good websites, without it destroying the internet. I'm not sure what that solution could be, but we shouldn't preclude the possibility.
- jonhohle 15y ago
  > Perhaps a solution can be found so goods manufactures can have some course of action against counterfeit-good websites, without it destroying the internet. I'm not sure what that solution could be, but we shouldn't preclude the possibility. The civil court system?
  - bediger 15y ago
    Yeah, but then the new class of "rightsholders" would have to pay for the enforcement of these new "rights" themselves. Surely they're entitled to have their "rights" enforced at others' expense.
    - seanp2k2 15y ago
      When rights of Imaginary Property ("IP") are upheld more vigilantly than the rights of due process (see: Manning, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, OPEN, etc), you know the system of checks and balances is broken.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        Manning is being court-martialed under the UCMJ, like any other soldier would be, for leaking classified information. I don't see how either IP or lack of due process apply here. Manning is being given due process, and his offense had nothing to do with IP any more than that of Julius Rosenberg or Jonathan Pollard.
djtumolo 15y ago
While I think we agree, I don't think cynicism is the way to go about it. "Information wants to be free" is real, and passing laws to stop it is a fool's errand. We should be working to harness this new distribution network, and build content businesses that work with piracy, not against it.
stfu 15y ago
Additionally the timing is very "suspicious". When already a co-sponsor of the bill announces that some re-drafting is necessary it seems like a very convenient timing to join the train.
RexRollman 15y ago
I voted for Obama, but when he says "Let us be clear", you know some bullshit is coming.
- Jgrubb 15y ago
  Quote of the day.
- Pelayo 15y ago
  And anything that starts with "Look...".
- jimbokun 15y ago
  To me, bullshit indicates that the speaker does not actually believe what he says. Is it possible that Obama just has different values from you? The way I read it, he very plainly is in favor of prosecuting copyright violators, and simply wants to eliminate some of the more egregious provisions of the currently proposed law. I don't think Obama is trying to obfuscate that view in any way, and is being very clear about it.
  - cema 15y ago
    Perhaps values themselves can be bullshit. The word sounds more like cursing than terminology, so when someone says that something is bullshit, it is not clear if the meaning is "something is a lie" or "something is incorrect" or something else.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      I believe Harry Frankfurt had something to say about that.
    - espeed 15y ago
      Read the essay "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html).
      - 15y ago
sgaither 15y ago
Most of the anti-SOPA companies like Google would agree with the sentiment of this statement. Look at their statement during the SOPA hearings. http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Oyama%2011162011.pdf http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Oyama%2011162011.pdf "While we have serious concerns with SOPA as written, we look forward to working with the Committee to find focused mechanisms that effectively target foreign rogue sites. Already, Google and other companies are engaged in voluntary, industry-led efforts to attack the problem. As detailed below, we believe that legislation guided by common sense principles and focused on eliminating the financial incentives for rogue sites – while avoiding collateral damage – would receive wide support from the technology sector." Not everyone who is against SOPA is also (publicly) OK with online piracy...they limit their arguments to the logistical problems introduce by SOPA enforcement
paganel 15y ago
You put too much into their words, but it's simple, they just don't get it. And it's not just the US Government, or the UK Government, or any other Government, it's the entire ruling class who just sits with its head in the sand and wishes that things would just remain the same. The last two times when that huge of a disconnect happened we had the French Revolution and Lenin's grabbing of power in Russia, let's just hope that this time things will be smoother.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  In what way do the authors of this statement "not get it"? This thread seems to be full of a depressing amount of cynicism, FUD, or outright lies aimed at the people responsible, but it seems to be one big ad hominem. I don't see a lot of comments even trying to address the substance of the statement. I do see several posts dismissing the whole response as empty rhetoric that doesn't say anything, even though there are several measures they say quite plainly and unambiguously they won't support (and it is good that they won't). OK, we get it, some of you don't trust Obama/government/the US/whoever. If you start from the position that they're just generating emtpy waffle to appease the critics, you have immediately rendered any contribution you might make irrelevant, since you presuppose that nothing you say matters anyway. I don't see a single post acknowledging that any realistic official position on this sort of issue must strike a balance between addressing genuine problems with piracy and addressing genuine technical/ethical concerns with the measures used to do so. In fact, that's my big problem with much of the opposition to proposed laws like this: it's all reactive and complaining about bad laws, but no-one is stepping up to propose a real solution that is more technically and ethically acceptable and still does something about the original problem. Shouting abuse from the cheap seats isn't going to advance the debate in any useful way. Sadly, the level of debate here is more like Slashdot lite than anything constructive: information wants to be free, they wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's not a lost sale, artists aren't entitled to any income and should just give live performances, the big media companies are asking for it with their consumer-hostile policies, intellectual property isn't real property and copyright infringement isn't theft, yada yada. It's just rationalising breaking the law, and I would bet good money that most people doing so haven't got the slightest clue about how many people work in creative industries and the real economics of those industries, though I'd also bet that the same people are among the first to complain about the state of the economy as their taxes go up, unemployment rises, their investment/pension returns fall, and so on. So, can we please try to have a constructive, balanced debate about this issue from now on? We have clearly reached a tipping point. There is potentially more public awareness and support for action from other businesses both large and small now than at any time in a generation. We can make a robust case that the whole system is broken and needs to be restored to some kind of sanity that can be accepted as reasonable by most people and enforced against the remainder, or we can continue to throw stones at the glass house and convince the political classes beyond any doubt that the lobbyists are the only sane people in the game.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by tumult 15y ago

kmfrk 15y ago

That press statement, to me, is a typical example of using transparency as a political tool to give citizens a false sense of participation. This is Obama's passivity during the LGBT rights activities during 2011 all over again. (Well, except that I am sure he wasn't paid to sit idly by when the LGBT movement was at its apex.) Keep calm and carry on.

darrellsilver 15y ago
Is this "passivity" a critique or praise of Obama? Not to go too far off-topic, but... Despite the economy and foreign policy being by far the most important issue throughout his presidency, his administration has been quite active and successful on LGBT issues. They've repealed DADT, changed the rules for LGBT in foreign service and passed Matthew Shepard hate crimes legislation. He's done all this without making LGBT issues a public spectacle, with a Congress that hates him and a public that hasn't made up its mind. It's for these reasons that HRC provides its full-throated support for Obama. Again -- I'm sorry for derailing the SOPA discussion, but we should keep our facts and impressions well-founded or our primary arguments will fall flat.
jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
I remember 2011, wasn't that the year when don't ask don't tell got repealed?

nl 15y ago

Sure, but you can cherry-pick other parts, too: Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security etc etc It's not a perfect statement, but real politics is about compromise. Perhaps a solution can be found so goods manufactures can have some course of action against counterfeit-good websites, without it destroying the internet. I'm not sure what that solution could be, but we shouldn't preclude the possibility.

jonhohle 15y ago
> Perhaps a solution can be found so goods manufactures can have some course of action against counterfeit-good websites, without it destroying the internet. I'm not sure what that solution could be, but we shouldn't preclude the possibility. The civil court system?
- bediger 15y ago
  Yeah, but then the new class of "rightsholders" would have to pay for the enforcement of these new "rights" themselves. Surely they're entitled to have their "rights" enforced at others' expense.
  - seanp2k2 15y ago
    When rights of Imaginary Property ("IP") are upheld more vigilantly than the rights of due process (see: Manning, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, OPEN, etc), you know the system of checks and balances is broken.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      Manning is being court-martialed under the UCMJ, like any other soldier would be, for leaking classified information. I don't see how either IP or lack of due process apply here. Manning is being given due process, and his offense had nothing to do with IP any more than that of Julius Rosenberg or Jonathan Pollard.

djtumolo 15y ago

While I think we agree, I don't think cynicism is the way to go about it. "Information wants to be free" is real, and passing laws to stop it is a fool's errand. We should be working to harness this new distribution network, and build content businesses that work with piracy, not against it.

stfu 15y ago

Additionally the timing is very "suspicious". When already a co-sponsor of the bill announces that some re-drafting is necessary it seems like a very convenient timing to join the train.

RexRollman 15y ago

I voted for Obama, but when he says "Let us be clear", you know some bullshit is coming.

Jgrubb 15y ago
Quote of the day.
Pelayo 15y ago
And anything that starts with "Look...".
jimbokun 15y ago
To me, bullshit indicates that the speaker does not actually believe what he says. Is it possible that Obama just has different values from you? The way I read it, he very plainly is in favor of prosecuting copyright violators, and simply wants to eliminate some of the more egregious provisions of the currently proposed law. I don't think Obama is trying to obfuscate that view in any way, and is being very clear about it.
- cema 15y ago
  Perhaps values themselves can be bullshit. The word sounds more like cursing than terminology, so when someone says that something is bullshit, it is not clear if the meaning is "something is a lie" or "something is incorrect" or something else.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    I believe Harry Frankfurt had something to say about that.
  - espeed 15y ago
    Read the essay "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html).
    - 15y ago

sgaither 15y ago

Most of the anti-SOPA companies like Google would agree with the sentiment of this statement. Look at their statement during the SOPA hearings. http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Oyama%2011162011.pdf http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Oyama%2011162011.pdf "While we have serious concerns with SOPA as written, we look forward to working with the Committee to find focused mechanisms that effectively target foreign rogue sites. Already, Google and other companies are engaged in voluntary, industry-led efforts to attack the problem. As detailed below, we believe that legislation guided by common sense principles and focused on eliminating the financial incentives for rogue sites – while avoiding collateral damage – would receive wide support from the technology sector." Not everyone who is against SOPA is also (publicly) OK with online piracy...they limit their arguments to the logistical problems introduce by SOPA enforcement

paganel 15y ago

You put too much into their words, but it's simple, they just don't get it. And it's not just the US Government, or the UK Government, or any other Government, it's the entire ruling class who just sits with its head in the sand and wishes that things would just remain the same. The last two times when that huge of a disconnect happened we had the French Revolution and Lenin's grabbing of power in Russia, let's just hope that this time things will be smoother.

Silhouette 15y ago
In what way do the authors of this statement "not get it"? This thread seems to be full of a depressing amount of cynicism, FUD, or outright lies aimed at the people responsible, but it seems to be one big ad hominem. I don't see a lot of comments even trying to address the substance of the statement. I do see several posts dismissing the whole response as empty rhetoric that doesn't say anything, even though there are several measures they say quite plainly and unambiguously they won't support (and it is good that they won't). OK, we get it, some of you don't trust Obama/government/the US/whoever. If you start from the position that they're just generating emtpy waffle to appease the critics, you have immediately rendered any contribution you might make irrelevant, since you presuppose that nothing you say matters anyway. I don't see a single post acknowledging that any realistic official position on this sort of issue must strike a balance between addressing genuine problems with piracy and addressing genuine technical/ethical concerns with the measures used to do so. In fact, that's my big problem with much of the opposition to proposed laws like this: it's all reactive and complaining about bad laws, but no-one is stepping up to propose a real solution that is more technically and ethically acceptable and still does something about the original problem. Shouting abuse from the cheap seats isn't going to advance the debate in any useful way. Sadly, the level of debate here is more like Slashdot lite than anything constructive: information wants to be free, they wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's not a lost sale, artists aren't entitled to any income and should just give live performances, the big media companies are asking for it with their consumer-hostile policies, intellectual property isn't real property and copyright infringement isn't theft, yada yada. It's just rationalising breaking the law, and I would bet good money that most people doing so haven't got the slightest clue about how many people work in creative industries and the real economics of those industries, though I'd also bet that the same people are among the first to complain about the state of the economy as their taxes go up, unemployment rises, their investment/pension returns fall, and so on. So, can we please try to have a constructive, balanced debate about this issue from now on? We have clearly reached a tipping point. There is potentially more public awareness and support for action from other businesses both large and small now than at any time in a generation. We can make a robust case that the whole system is broken and needs to be restored to some kind of sanity that can be accepted as reasonable by most people and enforced against the remainder, or we can continue to throw stones at the glass house and convince the political classes beyond any doubt that the lobbyists are the only sane people in the game.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]