Legislation Aims to Fight Digital Piracy

Friday, September 24, 2010


On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, which aims to shut down websites "dedicated to infringing activities." ThePirateBay.org and other overseas sites are known targets, having long welcomed customers from the U.S. CNET’s Greg Sandoval explains how this bill would change that.

Comments [2]

Miles Wilford from Yonkers

I was really bothered by how soft this interview went. I listen to OTM every week, and it isn't often that either Bob Garfield or Brooke will allow someone to get away with a completely weaselly answer, but that's what I heard in this program. Mr. Sandoval actually said, at one point, "There's plenty of anecdotal evidence" immediately after it was stated that all of the hard evidence was rejected. In the end, this is half of the entire issue - there's no conclusive evidence whatsoever that digital piracy has harmed (or helped, since in a total lack of any evidence at all either could be just as true) the music and film industries. I've seen perfectly reasonable looking arguments that make it appear that video games are the real sales loss from these companies, since most people only have a certain amount of entertainment spending they'll use in a given year and video games are a cheaper-per-hour form of entertainment.

Besides which, there were no questions at all about how this law was rushed and poorly-worded. Quite frankly, the language this law currently possesses gives nearly bottomless authority to shut down websites. YouTube would be just as likely a target as The Pirate Bay, and the RIAA/MPAA would have no remorse shutting down YouTube. All they care about is furthering their own existences. They don't even care about the artists they allegedly represent.

I am not claiming these are absolute proof against the MPAA/RIAA arguments against piracy, but the fact that these two hugely common points weren't even hinted at made this entire interview sound like a puff piece for the industry. I'm going to be sorely disappointed if I don't hear some kind of addendum to this story next week. This was one of the few programs out there that usually is willing to ask unpopular questions, but this story made me turn off the program in disgust.

Sep. 28 2010 09:42 AM
Thomas Perkins from Seattle

This story was very one-sided in favor of the corrupt and entrenched media money interests. I am not an information anarchist, however where is the voice of people who champion for digital rights and freedom?

It is truly reprehensible that MPAA and the like have bought out the voices of the media and our represented government so that only their viewpoint is heard.

Sep. 27 2010 05:50 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.