Comment Problems I saw with the article (Score 1) 525
> "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.
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.
