Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the don't-worry-about-it dept.

The Internet 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262158)

Everytime I read COICA, my mind wants to say Cloaca. I think a better name is needed.

Re:hmmm (3, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262798)

Someone should attach an amendment to this bill that if passed, rolls back copyright terms to 15yrs from publication retroactively, and then let's see how much they are for it?

If they rolled back copyright length, they there'd be much less likely hood any site would need to be blocked.

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263250)

My mind is making the same jump--but I don't think it needs another name.

Mr. Bob, (5, Informative)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262162)

I would like you to review the text of the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.

I also feel it would be helpful for you to review the writ [wikipedia.org] of habeas corpus [wikipedia.org] to better understand the Suspension Clause [wikipedia.org] :

Aritlce I, Section 9, Clause 2 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Of course, I already know your rebuttal: Murphy's Golden Rule [murphys-laws.com] .

Re:Mr. Bob, (-1, Offtopic)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262392)

Just think, so many Slashdotters were in favor of net neutrality. I bet the MPAA was ecstatic over the idea of lobbying friendly politicians to "regulate" torrent traffic.

Re:Mr. Bob, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263052)

That's not what net neutrality means, but you know that already.

Re:Mr. Bob, (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263210)

Just think, so many Slashdotters were in favor of net neutrality. I bet the MPAA was ecstatic over the idea of lobbying friendly politicians to "regulate" torrent traffic.

As Gollum would no doubt ask, were he present: "What did he say?"

Re:Mr. Bob, (4, Insightful)

bugi (8479) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262604)

Please also review the 14th amendment and the concept of due process.

Re:Mr. Bob, (2, Interesting)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262772)

Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.

Actually, thanks to the Supreme Court, it doesn't mean just what it says.

It now applies to the states and local governments as well, not just to Congress.

Re:Mr. Bob, (3, Informative)

eleuthero (812560) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262900)

um... not just thanks to the Supreme Court--this was a reasonable interpretation of Amendment 14 (the "Equal Protection Clause," specifically).

Re:Mr. Bob, (3, Interesting)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263130)

The evidence does not support this theory. Read Government by Judiciary [amazon.com] by (liberal) Raoul Berger [wikipedia.org] . In it you'll learn that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to give freedmen the right to enter contracts, to own property, and to sue. The Supreme Court may have twisted the meaning to suit their own purposes, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Berger.

Re:Mr. Bob, (2, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263170)

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?

Re:Mr. Bob, (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263318)

The Constitution grants Congress specific powers. Anything beyond the stated powers is beyond Congress's purview.

Article I, Section I All legislative powers herein granted...

Re:Mr. Bob, (1)

squidfood (149212) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263348)

The Constitution grants Congress specific powers.

Devil's advocate: those do in fact include copyright.

Editors!!! (2, Informative)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262180)

the power to shut down any domestic, or block and foreign website it so chooses

Editors of /. take a little time reading what gets posted

Mod Parent Informative (0, Offtopic)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262716)

I'm not quite sure why, but it appearers that according to some moderator pointing out a problem with the summary is Offtopic. A better Mod please fix this

No, it's Off-Topic (3, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263008)

I know grammar/spelling/composition critique is a time-honored /. pastime, but I definitely consider all such posts categorically off-topic. Boring at best, and a premeditated attempt to derail discussion with minutiae at worst.

Setting the state? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262186)

s/state/stage/

kthxbi

First Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262190)

Steal this post!

Too late. (1)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262192)

Free speech is currently in a hospice.

Re:Too late. (0, Troll)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262380)

What's the truth about free speech?
There is no free speech

Free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262202)

Must be stolen, so said the kleptocrats.

This wont get abused AT ALL (4, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262218)

After all, BUSINESS is America's business. And as we all know, if it's possible for a law to be repurposed to protect the profits of a private tyranny, it will happen.

Bob Pissant and his friends need a smack in the head for trying yet another corporatist stunt.

Bloodsucker (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262228)

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.

Re:Bloodsucker (4, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262422)

That's right. It was intended to be dismissed by a totally submissive public. Mission Accomplished...

Re:Bloodsucker (1)

mmaniaci (1200061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263224)

Modded flaimbait, but I'm having trouble disagreeing with him...

Re:Bloodsucker (5, Insightful)

Katmando911 (1039906) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262942)

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.

wank (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262236)

i think there's a slight misunderstanding of how rights work here...

He's right (5, Insightful)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262240)

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.

but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262252)

copyright infringement is not theft.

You can't steal from corporations (5, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262260)

You can't steal from corporations.

They aren't people.

They can't be drafted.

They can't be executed.

They never serve a day in jail.

Thus, stealing only occurs when you steal from people.

No matter what the Supreme Court says.

P.S.: Revert to the original patents and copyrights in the original Constitution if you want us to respect them.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (5, Interesting)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262530)

More importantly, as not all copyright holders are corporations, violation of copyright protections is not theft. It is not stealing. It is not burglary, it is not piracy.

It is violating copyright protections.

And as far as that goes, neither the Copyright Acts or 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' are permitted to run contrary to the First Amendment, regardless of it's purpose.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (0)

mccrew (62494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262878)

It is violating copyright protections.

So it's all OK then?

Re:You can't steal from corporations (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263014)

Well, holy shit. My teachers were wrong, there ARE stupid questions.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (2, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263104)

My physics teacher had a slight modification that I much prefer:

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262748)

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:You can't steal from corporations (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262918)

No, a business owner is a person.

When in a DBA (Doing Business As) sole proprietorship, it is a literal person.

A person who has legal ramifications.

That's different.

That's theft.

They just let a CEO go free for defrauding stock holders by backdating his options grants - like I said, corporations aren't people.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (1)

abuelos84 (1340505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263064)

It's not stealing. If i download a copy of a digital reproduction of a song, what i'm taking from them? I wasn't going to buy the cds anyway, or any dvd. So what is it that i'm substracting from them?
I give you that the process itself of copying that information from a remote server into your local machine can be considered illegal (if it is so legislated) But, in my opinion, that can't be compared with stealing from a store. Things are not so black and white.
But anyway I really consider this a non-issue, since it is the current model of market as a whole that is so archaic that can't coexist with the reality of what humans want and do.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263132)

Even if you WERE going to buy it, you still didn't steal anything. Until you had actually forked over money, the sale did not exist. Projected sales are just that: projections.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262930)

They aren't people.

They can't be drafted.

They can't be executed.

They never serve a day in jail.

Thus, stealing only occurs when you steal from people.

Non sequitur. You assume "not a person" equates to "can't be stolen from" but give no reason why this should be considered to be the case.

Following your logic, one could just as easily say you can't steal from a charity, a church, a government, a trade union, or a bridge club.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263088)

I said nothing about any of those other groups, just the legal fictions not mentioned in the Constitution but which precede them, which are called Corporations.

If you wish to steal from these other groups, have at it.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263218)

I said nothing about any of those other groups, just the legal fictions not mentioned in the Constitution but which precede them, which are called Corporations.

Doesn't matter. All of the things you listed as reasons why a corporation can't be stolen from apply to those groups too. Therefore, you must either claim that they also can't be stolen from (which still leaves you with the burden of showing that those reasons apply since you still haven't done that), or concede that those properties don't make it impossible for a corporation to be stolen from.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263370)

Doesn't matter. All of the things you listed as reasons why a corporation can't be stolen from apply to those groups too. Therefore, you must either claim that they also can't be stolen from (which still leaves you with the burden of showing that those reasons apply since you still haven't done that), or concede that those properties don't make it impossible for a corporation to be stolen from.

I see you failed Logic 200.

I got an A in that.

You can't prove a superset from a subset.

If A is True then A + B may be True or may be False.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (2, Interesting)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263082)

You can't steal from corporations.

So if I jack a business vehicle off company property, I'm in the clear, then?

They aren't people.

Yes, they are, according to http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202439349140 [law.com] .

They can't be drafted.

But they can be given military contracts, can't they?

They can't be executed.

Tell that to AT&T. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture [wikimedia.org]

They never serve a day in jail.

No, but their board members and CEOs sure as shit can. http://www.enrontheplay.com/ [enrontheplay.com]

Thus, stealing only occurs when you steal from people.

No matter what the Supreme Court says.

Corporations are established by people and jointly owned by people. You steal from them, you steal from their board members, their employees and their families. And thank God we live in a country where the opinion of the courts matter.

Re:You can't steal from corporations (5, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263166)

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:You can't steal from corporations (2, Funny)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263192)

Oh man, don't take me back to that topic. I'm going to be doomed to 0-start posts and negative karma for life...

Grammar much? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262266)

I take it "setting the state" means "setting the stage."

Re:Grammar much? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262376)

No they are literally setting the state. As in, they are explicitly specifying how the government is going to be.

Well then Pisano just proved... (4, Insightful)

Dalzhim (1588707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262276)

... 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.

Pisano for president! (1)

RJHelms (1554807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262278)

Good thing Bob Pisano is neither a legislator nor a judge!

The First Amendment was also not intended as a shield for people who call the MPAA a gang of turd-burglars, but here we are.

Re:Pisano for president! (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263144)

You're wrong about that last bit. Our ability to express our opinion (that the MPAA is a gang of turd-burglars) is protected by that very amendment, by design.

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262300)

Also, I think you mean "setting the stage" not "setting the state"

Way to miss the point! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262302)

Way to miss the point!

This is really starting to get raw (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262310)

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.

Re:This is really starting to get raw (4, Insightful)

cyber-dragon.net (899244) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263060)

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.

Re:This is really starting to get raw (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263338)

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.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. The problem is, the people most able to call them on it (Congress and the Justice Department) have already been coopted. But you're right though: this is an issue where We the People had better take a stand.

Re:This is really starting to get raw (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263186)

Indeed. We'll just dismiss "privacy concerns" when we break into your bedroom while you fuck your mistress (or... whatever you call a male "mistress" as the case may be), Mr. Pisano. I'm sure you'll understand.

Stupid (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262326)

This goes way beyond the potential for censorship (though that is, indeed, egregious). What about the violation of due process?

FIrst post! (-1, Offtopic)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262332)

First post!!!

I guess not many people care about COICA - I refreshed the browser a bunch of times before posting this.

Re:FIrst post! (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263196)

You didn't even manage first fail. ... you also for got that important little checkbox...

Jack said it best ... (4, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262336)

"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:Jack said it best ... (2, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262894)

I'm sure glad the MPAA is here to tell me what the Founding Fathers intended!

Where's my "Scroll of Resurrect the Founding Fathers" when I need it? Actually, it is the role of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to decide what the Founding Fathers intended. Although, it would be interesting to see what Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would think about Bob Pisano's opinions.

Jefferson: "This dick-brained piece of shit is trying to wield power using our Constitution!?!"

Franklin: "Dude, we must have like totally fucked up when writing that bastard."

Of course not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262342)

No it wasn't intended for people who steal. But repeating information is not stealing, so that doesn't matter.

Of course they'd say that (4, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262350)

Well, it is true. The 1st Amendment of the US allows for ... let me look it up...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Okay, so the part about religion doesn't apply unless there's an esoteric branch of Hinduism that allows for the reincarnation of bits as MP3s.

Freedom of speech...really, when you get right down to it, when you download music, that's a form of censorship. You're taking money away from the MPAA, and that's money they use to bribe congressmen and senators and presidents. How can they redress the Government when they don't have any money?

For freedom of the press, how important is it to be able for the media to access the Internet? You have newspapers and television and radio. Admittedly, half of those are official government propaganda machines and the other half is owned by media conglomerates, but the idea is still there.

Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.

Re:Of course they'd say that (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262526)

Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.

Not to mention the Internet as a place to assemble, as in meet like-minded people. And unlike demonstrations and other mass gatherings that they have some semi-legitimate grounds of public safety, rioting and so on to regulate it, there's very few excuses to stop people from "assembling" online. True, many of these "sign this" or "join this" don't amount to much by themselves but it makes people realize they are many and maybe could force change.

Re:Of course they'd say that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262586)

Corporate sponsors religion is money. Their ability to receive it freely is their practice of religion, by not making this law congress is impinging on their ability to practice their first amendment rights.

Wait a minute, maybe I'm thinking Scientology... damnit I always get those evil corporations mixed up.

Re:Of course they'd say that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262764)

Hmmm, so would putting a news item on the front page of a web site be enough to prevent it from being blocked?

Re:Of course they'd say that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262970)

Just stop.

We don't complain about these laws because we want to distribute copyrighted stuff under the facade of 'Free Speech'.

We complain about these laws because we don't want the government to be able to delete information under the facade of 'Copyright Infringement'.

It'd be great if all laws were used to pursue the objectives they say they intend to pursue, but here in the real world, we have to assume that every law that's written will be abused. This is the first amendment concern.

Oh the irony... (1)

rs1n (1867908) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262356)

If it's thieves he's worried about, then he and the rest of the "marketing" industry should just take salary cuts (i.e. be happy with 5-digit salary like the rest of us) and give the rest of the profits to the actual creators of the intellectual property. Until they are willing to do that, they are just as much as thieves as the pirates. So we're just trading for legislation that protects one group of thieves as opposed to another.

Re:Oh the irony... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263212)

There is indeed no honor among thieves.

It would be such a shame.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262362)

if something harmful happened to mister Pisano.

Pisano ducked the question. (5, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262384)

Pisano is correct in saying "the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means."

He is incorrect in saying that all traffic coming from a site hosting an infringer is the result of stealing, nor is he correct in saying that a conviction for theft is necessary before this law shuts down a site (it requires only a request for a preliminary injunction), nor that the law even restricts its scope to actual theft (it applies if the site is merely to linking to another site that may or may not already be accused of thieving).

At the point where Pisano guarantees that not one innocent person will have their data cut off from the net for even one second, and can prove it with the text of the bill that accomplishes his goals while doing that, then he may claim he's stopping theft without abrogating the First Amendment.

Re:Pisano ducked the question. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262510)

Well said.

Re:Pisano ducked the question. (1)

joeboomer628 (869162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262968)

I hope you are not implying that the mpaa or other institution would overreach on this. Look how much illegal (or at least in opposition of their point of view) posting of material has been thwarted with takedown notices.

Re:Pisano ducked the question. (5, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263022)

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.

in the words of Wen Jiabao (1)

kwoff (516741) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262418)

som what you're saying is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262626)

that in communist china, the state supports free speech?

Re:som what you're saying is... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262902)

You need to follow the link. Wen said that free speech was important. When Chinese official media distributed his interview, however, his words were removed from the loop. His speech was "harmonized" by the state media outlets. Talk about irony...

Hey... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262482)

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.

It's not a law, or even a treaty (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262490)

> I would like you to review the text of the 1st Amendment:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government > for a redress of grievances.

> Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.

Unfortunately this won't be a law, or even a treaty. It's an executive agreement and so therefore the 1st amendment may not apply.

Re:It's not a law, or even a treaty (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262738)

It always applies. This simply does an 'end the round' to try and lock it in the courts while they violate rights... by the time it gets to the Supreme Court, it has already had the intended effect... and they can dismiss the order and not care. :)

And I am SO GODDAMNED tired of hearing the word "steal" when these assholes talk about infringement. Fuck off and die, MPAA/RIAA.

You think WHAT????!!!??? (1)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262784)

You think that an "executive agreement" both:
- has legal force, and
- is exempt from the first amendment?

Tell me your kidding.

More to the point, tell me that the Supreme Court does not agree with you...

Is this a joke (1, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262550)

His name is Pisano? Next I will hear his middle name is Guido. The MPAA is like the MAFIA jokes are starting to look rather realistic.

Re:Is this a joke (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34263322)

'tis MAFIAA: Music And Film Industry Associations of America.

Burden of proof (1)

Mistakill (965922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262574)

i wonder how the RIAA would feel if i accused them of say, IP infringement on some code id written, and had their site shut down (note, theyd be shutdown, whether or not i had written such code), it just takes an accusation, as the RIAA requires no burden of proof

note to the RIAA... this is a big part of the reason people hate you

Counter (4, Insightful)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262616)

Copyright law was not intended as a shield for those who censor, irrespective of the motive.

I have an idea...internet...bla,bla,bla (1)

greenmean11 (1942386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262732)

Why is it that the government is always trying to take away our freedoms? Its so hypocritical of them, I mean why can they use Guantanamo Bay as a loop hole for freedom? And if they censor the internet whats next? Listening in on our phone conversations......(whispers).....O, they already do that? Invading personal freedom when traveling......(whispers)...O they already do that? Well what don't they do? If someone were to really try you could probably find a loophole for all the amendments, but just like excuses, just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. The only thing I kind of understand with the whole internet censorship thing is censoring some foreign website because of internet viruses they could make, but even so, people living in the U.S. could make viruses too, there are dicks all over the world. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think anyone should censor the internet because it is our one very free medium.

Boycott (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262812)

That's it. I'm boycotting COICA Cola

So, so angry, so helpless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34262938)

So. Fucked. Up. I see this going two ways if it gets passed... either Americans continue to take it deeper in the ass, a la airports, or heads will be rolling, a la French Revolution, and this guy is on the list.

Big Tobacco also.. (1)

ewhenn (647989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262972)

Big Tobacco also dismissed that nicotine was not addictive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs).

Does it really surprise you that mega-greed industry representatives will lie through their teeth to try and rake in more profits? Yeah, go after individual files and links, that's fine, but to think that taking and entire site offline, won't at some point violate someones free speech is embarrassingly full of shit.

Re:Big Tobacco also.. (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263230)

actually, big tobacco don't particularly care.

therapeutic nicotine is still made from tobacco, costs a lot and can be advertised with impunity. they're riding the "let's quit" gravy train.

Trying to shut down a distro channel. (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34262976)

The movie people will have a hard time squaring this with the First Amendment.

You can't shut down a speaker in the future for unlawful speech acts committed in the past--unless you convict the speaker of a crime. Even then, the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause imposes limitations. This idea comes from Nesson's (self-promoting) arguments in the Tenenbaum case.

You also can't have speech laws that selectively target movies and music.

If I was a file sharer, I would add a meaningful political message (relating to reform of the copyright laws, maybe) to every single file I shared. Let the fascist SOBs try to shut me down in total, after that.

I've got no sympathies for people who share pirated material, but I have less sympathy for corporations who want to shut down ALL file sharing (including legal sharing).

Don't forget that some of our best antitrust cases resulted from the movie studios' attempts to tightly control their product--all the way from film studio to local movie house. Those pricks would dominate all distro channels in a heartbeat unless government regulation keeps them from it.

 

Re:Trying to shut down a distro channel. (1)

cyber-dragon.net (899244) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263174)

They do it anyway via shell corporations and off-shore holdings.

Congressmen and the Constitution (1)

NonSenseAgency (1759800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263024)

'...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.' Let us try this again...the First Amendment makes no mention of stealing or being a shield for those who steal. It is quite simple really, CONGRESS (emphasis mine) shall make no law....the rest is pretty straightforward. I would venture that the honourable Congressman Leahy needs to be recalled by his constituents since he obviously has NO clue as to the meaning of the Constitution and therefore cannot be entrusted to represent the great state of Delaware adequately. As for Mr Pisano, well look here the pot is calling the kettle black.....

To be fair to the MPAA... (1)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263054)

No one likes a COICA blocker.

The MPAA is stealing my rights. Shut it down. (4, Insightful)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263118)

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

"Theft"? "Stealing"? No. (4, Interesting)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263136)

I think what is really needed is legislation that outlaws this sort of attempted perversion of the words "theft" and "stealing".

Once we've put a stop to that perversion, the rest of Big Media's FUD campaigns will abruptly end. Since digital media by its very nature can be replicated endlessly with virtually no material cost, exactly what is being "stolen" here? NOTHING! Sure, packaging has material costs, but the "pirates" (infringers) aren't getting that packaging, are they? The cost of producing the "art" contained in the digital file was incurred ONCE, and the expectation of recouping those expenses is SPECULATIVE; the price of the packaging is a guesstimate, based on a hoped sales volume to result in some net profit. What if simply no one actually buys the package, even in the absence of "piracy"? There would have been no "theft" by this perverted definition, yet they still lose their shirts and don't get the desired profit. There's not a shred of certainty that denying people the ability to copy digital media will guarantee an equivalent increase in actual PACKAGING sales, so that argument is also FUD.

MAFIAA? (1)

baKanale (830108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263244)

Pisano? Sounds like paisano to me! They really are the MAFIAA!

Look at this another way. No More Sampling. (1)

bigdogpete (1796228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34263352)

Should this become law (which I highly doubt) at least we will be able to shut down every artist webpage that has "sampled" another artists music.Oh wait that is alot of artists. Be careful what you say MPAA "...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?