

MPAA attacks Ars for "challenging efforts to curb content theft" - duck
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/mpaa-attacks-ars-for-challenging-efforts-to-curb-content-theft.ars

======
freehunter
I love Ars Technica. They fairly consistently have the best journalism of any
mainstream-oriented tech news site, work hard to stay unbiased (though don't
always achieve that 100%), and hire quality writers.

That being said, I don't like this piece. It's emotional, and even as they
admit, hyperbolic. Unless "crazy freetards" is a word the MPAA used in their
posting, I don't see a legitimate reason for Ars to use it. The bill might be
_absolutely freaking insane_ , but I don't read Ars to be told that, I read
Ars to be informed about the issue.

I understand their passion, their disgust, and their defensiveness. I share
their sentiments exactly. I just don't understand why that should undermine
their professionalism.

~~~
Doches
I disagree. This comes across as a fantastic editorial, with just the right
amount of frankness ("The thing is, we're really on the MPAA's side; they just
don't realize it.") to make me sit up and take them seriously.

My only quibble is that it's filed as a news piece, rather than the editorial
it so clearly is. This isn't news; it's meta-news.

~~~
chernevik
But they might better have first ribbonized the complaining article:

MPAA: "Sanchez’s main argument is that theft has a negligible economic impact
– only some inefficiency – because theft is beneficial"

Sanchez ([http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-
con-...](http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-
congress/)):

"Does that mean online piracy is harmless? Of course not. But the harm is a
dynamic loss in allocative efficiency, which is much harder to quantify. That
is, in the cases where a consumer would have been willing to buy an illicitly
downloaded movie, album, or software program, we want the market to be
accurately signalling demand for the products people value, rather than
whatever less-valued use that money gets spent on instead."

MPAA:

"Extending this argument, shoplifting has no economic impact since shoplifters
can spend the money they “saved” on other products . . ."

Sanchez:

"In many cases—I’ve seen research suggesting it’s about 80 percent for music—a
U.S. consumer would not have otherwise purchased an illicitly downloaded song
or movie if piracy were not an option. Here, the result is actually pure
consumer surplus: The downloader enjoys the benefit, and the producer loses
nothing."

(The problem with the shoplifting analogy: those pinched Mach 3 razor blades
are gone, and must be restocked at some cost. And whomever uses the pinched
razors, needs razors of some kind, so the theft does diminish revenue. Theft
of copyright doesn't force restocking to enable a legit sale, and Sanchez is
suggesting that the thief wouldn't have been a legit sale in the first place.)

MPAA: "Sanchez argued against Congressional passage of the Stop Online Piracy
Act, basing his reasoning on his own faulty logic that content theft and
counterfeiting don’t cause widespread economic pain"

Sanchez:

"I’ve yet to encounter a technically clueful person who believes the Stop
Online Piracy Act will actually do anything to meaningfully reduce—let alone
“stop”—online piracy, and so I haven’t bothered writing much about the absurd
numbers . . . . If the proposed solution just won’t work, after all, why
bother quibbling about the magnitude of the problem? But . . . . I’m offended
to see bad data invoked so routinely and brazenly, on general principle"

MPAA:

"Ars Technica, a tech blog with a long history of challenging efforts to curb
content theft. . . . "

In light of the above, we're content to let the reader consider the source. We
do thank the MPAA for correcting their spelling of our name (see screenshot w/
'Arts Technica'), and suggest their analysis is every bit as good as their
proof reading.

------
dhughes
It's like McCarthyism only it's not about Communism it's about piracy and
copyright.

------
delinka
MPAA forgot the other half of the gun argument. Guns can kill people but we
don't prevent law enforcement from having guns? OK, but U.S. citizens have the
right to own guns also, kind of a balance of power so to speak.

So where is my balance of power with respect to SOPA/PIPA? When someone
improperly targets my website (intentionally or not) and it's offline due to a
simple accusation, what's my recourse?

~~~
Joakal
If a company abuses DMCA, they are liable for perjury. The police prosecutor
is meant to charge them. However, that hasn't happened.

Alternatively, if a person suffered monetary damages (current and future),
they can sue the abuser for damages. This is what protects big companies from
potential DMCA abusers because they have a lot to lose.

Since free content creators can't sue for damages but only counternotice and
accept liability if they're not scared from the notice; but people sharing the
content will be more afraid of the legalese in counternotices. The bill's
intent was to stop freely infringing copyright content, it also consequently
kills free content sharing due to the unchecked abuse. It's brilliant bill for
the anti-Internet activists.

MPAA are anti-Internet activists by the way.

------
c0ur7n3y
I like Ars Technica so much, I bought a premium membership to show my support.
I will never buy a premium membership at mpaa.org.

~~~
jrockway
Ironically, I pirate Ars Technica.

------
Vivtek
Now that's how you write policy pieces - short, cutting, funny, and
informative.

------
jrockway
When some random person on the Internet trolls, they are ignored. So why don't
we ignore the copyright trolls? "A piece of literature is arguing against our
policies." Well... yeah, welcome to society!

~~~
Natsu
> So why don't we ignore the copyright trolls?

Because they're modifying our copyright laws.

------
nvrmor
theft ≠ infringement

------
maeon3
MPAA wants censorship rights without due process on bytes traveling between
any device. If you resist then you are labeled as petty thieves who want paid
content for free.

MPAA wants to preserve a 18th century business model against a modern
infrastructure where thought, matter, data, energy, directives and commerse
exist as one and can be freely transmitted between minds (the future devices
they want to censor... You and I, our sensors and transmission devices)

our minds will eventually join this symphony of communication called the
internet. We better cook freedom right into it or you'll find penalties for
thinking and communicating unauthorized information.

