Got this video by Kirby Ferguson from Holmes Wilson at “Fight for the Future,” a starry-eyed organization that looks a little naive and a little goofy, but which has something to say about what Big IP and Congress are doing.

And if it didn’t have the PROTECT IP Act, why, it would have to invent it!

Here, look — colors, noises:

As I said when I “liked” this on Facebook, this may not be perfectly balanced, but I think it’s pretty fair.

By Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

4 thoughts on “PROTECT IP — Threat or menace?”
  1. Ron,

    I don’t think the video got the correct message across. The major problems I see with the proposed law are these:

    1. Definition of rouge sites is too ambiguous. It would, for example, include and other library applications. It most likely would have ensnared UTube as well in its early stages.

    2. Demands by businesses are policed by the Government who can issue orders to take down domains. While some argue a judge is involved, this is not true and any involvement is limited to an ex parte process. Once taken down, it is the burden of the domain owner to sue to remove the order. The domain owner is not even entitled to see the evidence used by the government!

    3. Private right of action against too many “contributory” infringers. This will lead to an ever increasing scope of who is and is not a contributory infringer (already way too broad IMO). The action will target the low-hanging-fruit of tertiary service providers who will settle to avoid the costs. This in turn will lead to a default take-down on demand system driven by the financial need of the “defendants” to avoid the costs of litigation.

    The IP crowd needs to rethink this issue and start approaching the solution from a business standpoint. Litigation and law enforcement is not a business model (other than for lawyers and “investigative service providers”). Making the content widely available and charging reasonable prices. This of course requires development of different business models for revenue generation (e.g. selling concert tickets and unique products available to groupie members, etc. The issue of availability is the creation of the industry itself. They have allowed the “right” to distribute to become disjointed from the market. For example, why can’t I get the same content in Spain that I could get if I still lived in the US? Largely because the industry negotiated differing distribution agreements rendering the supply side to appear somewhat like the cell phone industry where if I am using a Spanish cell phone in London, my call to the person next to me clearly routes from my phone to the local switch and on to my friend (being answered immediately) but for invoicing purposes must appear to “travel” from London to Spain and back to London.

    All of this will eventually lead to a public uproar and an erosion of copyright laws (and perhaps other IP regulations as well).

    1. I agree with you that the video is simplistic; it’s not meant for the IP crowd.

      But who is the IP crowd, really? I am not sure I know the answer or want to.

Comments are closed.