1:13:57 We get a rare opportunity today as the MPAA, the Motion Picture Association of America, has uncloaked its true mission had we had net neutrality and I think now this could still be implemented of course in California where as far as I know the net neutrality laws have passed and as specifically although billed as hey man no one can slow down your Netflix or even slow down your Noah gender show because all has to be no no one gets any priority no fast channels
1:14:33 The part that this show focused on was the small use of the words ISPs may legally block unlawful content and unlawful traffic, which is what seemed to be quite an issue as you know, what is, it's not illegal by the way, it's unlawful is a little different. I mean you can create, something can be unlawful very quickly. So the MPAA has put out the recommendations. This is what they want legislators to work on. I believe this is what they wanted to have implemented with net neutrality and it's pretty interesting. Four main topics that I just want to discuss. They demand hosting providers filter using automated content recognition technology, which as we know works really well.
1:15:24 To forward Digital Millennium Copyright Act notices, DMCA takedown essentially, to users, terminate repeat infringers after receipt of a reasonable number of notices and prevent re-registration by terminated users. implement download bandwidth or frequency limitations to prevent high volume traffic for particular files, which sounds like that wouldn't have fit with net neutrality anyway. Agree not... No, that does a whole lot of second. Yeah, I know. I know. I thought the net neutrality was all about that. I know. I'm just reading it to you. Well, now of course net neutrality didn't happen, so maybe they added that in.
1:16:06 But even then, that would not be in accordance with net neutrality, which they supported. We continue. Agree not to... Okay, you're joking. This is the MP. Yeah, these are guys trying to protect their movies. Yeah, but it goes pretty far. Agree not to challenge third-party application of court orders regarding suspension of hosting services in cases by rights holders against pirate sites. Remove files expeditiously and block referral traffic from known privacy sites. So this is where it gets interesting. They continue reverse proxy servers should disclose the true hosting location of pirate sites upon referral, terminate identified pirate sites and prevent these sites from re-registering and agree not to challenge third-party application of court orders regarding suspension of reverse proxy services.
1:16:55 ISPs should forward digital Millennium Copyright Act notices to users, terminate repeat infringers after receipt of a reasonable number of notices, and prevent re-registration. Also, expeditiously comply with document subpoenas for user information and block sites subject to court order in the applicable jurisdiction. And finally, social media should be compelled to remove ads, links and pages dedicated to the promotion of any privacy devices and terminate repeat infringers. They really want to block links. A site that has a link to anything. Which of course Google would be the biggest offender but they're the good guys. And I think it's very telling to see what the
1:17:44 the Motion Picture Association of America really wants. But more importantly, they claim that they have the right to do this because of the Constitution. And yeah, I want to read this to you because I actually looked into it to try and figure out what they meant. Let me see where it is. Where is the... they call it the... I think they call it the copyright clause, although that's not what it's called in the Constitution. So they released a very large document, the MPAA, and this is, what do they actually call this? It's their rationale for all of these horrible things they want to implement. And they say that, they cite here specifically, respect for copyright driving innovation and competition.
1:18:38 And here's what they say, which I think is very disingenuous. Respect for copyright helps drive this creative and economic activity, making the United States the global leader in the creation of content enjoyed worldwide. And here it comes. The Constitution's copyright clause recognizes that securing the rights of creators in the fruits of their creativity, including to determine how to disseminate their works, increases both the production and distribution of content to the ultimate benefit of the public. And this thinking to me, and I've looked at several Supreme Court cases, it is so contrary to what the Constitution says in my humble constitutional opinion. Well, let me tell you what I think. Well, let me, no, you can't because you come in after I've told you. Section 8 of the Constitution indeed has the following clause, which is not titled the copyright clause, it's just a part of Section 8 of the Constitution, and it goes as follows.
1:19:41 to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to the respective writings and discoveries. That is one of the powers Congress has. And they somehow believe that this means that this is to let content creators enjoy the fruits of their labor. But that, and they say distribution is a part of this clause by taking the word promotion and progress and saying, oh, that's about distribution, so our distribution needs to be protected. This is all, they lay this all out. But really, what I believe the Constitution says, and I am interested in what you have to say, is they're not about
1:20:31 making more money for the creator, they're saying to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, that would be technology, for the people by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right and now of course the limited time has become the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years and it's plus I think 95 it was a corporation 50 years yeah it's it's insane what that's become and this is a comp I think this is something that should really be revisited at a Supreme Court level. It is just disgusting the way they are taking this clause and turning it into something for the creator. No, it was so that people could receive useful knowledge and information to build upon, to promote for the people, not for your profit. I'm interested to hear what you have to say about it. Copyright law was to protect the creator for 26 years and then he could renew it for another 26 years if he wanted to.
1:21:35 and then it'd go into the public domain, which means Mickey Mouse, for example, should be in the public domain by this law, and so should Donald Duck and all the rest of these Disney things. And the idea was, so the guy who did the invention of the creation, even though there's patent laws that also protect those guys, would make out from, you wanna be creative, but it wasn't for life. And it wasn't like for anything, it wasn't for something you could just sell. I mean, now it's become a commodity. You create something and you sell it to somebody else and then they now own it. That's not protecting the creator. I mean, it is for the moment that he gets the check. The whole thing is a scam. But what I'm saying, so I'm disagreeing with you here because I do not believe that this was to protect the creator. No.
1:22:27 is not to just protect the creator, it is to have a time limit where the actual invention can help the general public. That is the distribution part, to progress, to give it to the people at large in the public domain. Well, I don't know about the distribution part. 26 years was just arbitrary. There's no rule that says 26 years, that was just made up and now it's been extended to, as you say, 150 years is about the lifetime of a copyright or a patent. Yeah, everybody's dead. Yeah, no, I said it twice now. The point was, yeah, they get protected for 26 years because otherwise it would just be like...
1:23:07 the stuff would be stolen instantly. So you wouldn't be able to even do a magazine, just steal it. That's not paying anything for anything. Cause it's just easy to steal. And so they had to protect this guy for a while. And then it was supposed to go into the public domain, which I did say, and that was what benefited the public where you could, you know, work upon it, use it for something else. You could rejigger it, you could rewrite it, you could do other things with it. Well, all I'm saying is the Motion Picture Association of America's interpretation of the Constitution has been debunked by as far back as Justice Brennan that this is not intended to secure the rights of the creators and the fruits of their creativity to ultimately benefit the public because it doesn't benefit the public. It benefits the corporations at this point.
1:23:59 And it's just, I'm just blown away by how they think that that's what that constitutional clause means in section 8. It's all about them. Well yes it is! And what they're, and they're screwing themselves because now we've gotten to this point we have too many services. That's why we're gonna see people start stealing content again. Because you know, you can't... Again? Yes, in bigger numbers. I think it definitely got better with easy access through Netflix, but then you have Netflix, you have Amazon, you have Hulu. You have to have $500 worth of subscriptions if you don't want to have FOMO and want to watch the latest coolest show. So of course people don't do that. No.
1:24:44 You can't monetize it. There is the cord cutting phenomenon, which is partly due to this overpricing. Partly due. It's because of the overpricing. Yes. And the kind of the scamish aspect of bundling. I mean, if you get a subscription, say, how many people watch more than one or two movies a month on Showtime? HBO, Starz, and all these other things that you subscribe to in a bundle and it costs you a lot of money and you're really just seeing two movies. You have the access. The whole thing needs to be rethought and the MPAA is, to me, they're making the same kind of mistake that the RIAA made when they brought to the public's attention the fact that you could get MP3s by downloading them for free
1:25:31 which was just an underground thing for years. It was usually done by DJs and people that, you know, they just really couldn't put a collection together. And it was an underground trading and college kids were the biggest, probably the biggest thieves. They had many of the college networks had all these songs that had somebody slipped onto the network that school didn't even know about it. And they were trading back and forth and listening to music. The college kids couldn't afford to buy all these songs and albums, and most of them weren't that good at the time. But it was just underground. It stayed that way until the RIA came up and brought it to the attention of the public at large. Hey, look what's going on! And the next thing you know, everyone's saying, yeah, geez, oh, this is cool. And then Napster became a thing because of it. The whole thing is poorly thought out. Why can't they take Pirate's Bay offline?
1:26:28 Why would, what do you mean why can't they? Who's they? They are, they're MPAA. They're, they're in that document you just read. They're talking about sources of distribution. They can't. How they have to. They can't and that's why net neutrality was needed and now that as I said, as I prefaced this decloaking shows what they wanted to do at the ISP level. They want to shut you down under the unlawful content, unlawful network traffic clauses. That's the point. They can't, you can't shut down torrents, you can't shut down stuff, it's peer-to-peer, it's always going to be around. That's where they're going after the ISPs. And we only have four of them. We only have a few real ISPs, certainly in the United States, and they just want to block that traffic. Ah, it's a referral link, ah, it's a proxy link, ah, it's torrent traffic, ah. And they have agreements, and they have agreements with all the payment services.
1:27:24 So they... Comcast, Comcast, it's in their interest to block those things because they sell movies. Yeah. They have their own, you know, Netflix clone that they, you know, if you're a Comcast customer, you can, most of the ISPs do. Rent this movie. It's new. Rent this movie. three bucks, four bucks, whatever it is. And they would love to be able to block this stuff. But I don't know how they're going to get around the technology. Technology, these guys are slow on the draw. They're not technologists. They're a bunch of bureaucrats and lawyers. Why are you arguing with me? We've already agreed on this point several times in the past.
1:28:01 This is what every time you turn around now you have the VPN can go but past all this stuff and what are they gonna do about it? Which is exactly what they said they want they wanted to mandate that referring link traffic from VPNs would be available so they would know if both sides a if the hosting part was in it where that originated from or if you were accessing from the wrong country for some sort of something you're not supposed to retrieve and You go to, okay, you take your VPN, everyone has one. I'd say half the users of this show have a VPN. You're just making my point for me. I don't understand what you're doing. I'm gonna make your point for you, because apparently you can't make it to me, but I'm gonna make it to you. So you got these VPNs all over the place, and they're encrypted every which way. They're encrypted to the VPN, they're encrypted from the VPN, they're encrypted from the VPN to the other site, and the other site back and forth.
1:28:56 I don't care what kind of deep packet sniffing you do to just look at this data stream that's just an anonymous data stream coming in just as a bunch of nothing. I don't see how you're going to be able to determine that it's a BitTorrent stream or anything else for that matter. These guys are fooling themselves. They're charging money. To fool themselves are charging money to somebody that this is not being done if you wanted to do this you have to do it some other way open your mind what i said was. They decloaked what they wanted to have happen with net neutrality in place.
1:29:33 If net neutrality was the law, they would have easily... It is in California. I also said that. And so I said we'll have to see what happens in California. If it was the law, you better believe they would have ways to say unlawful traffic, unlawful content coming from these IP addresses, their VPNs, their proxy servers. They would have every right and the ISPs would have to comply. That's my only point. They have to make VPNs illegal. No, you can't tell it's not unlawful traffic. Unlawful, yes, unlawful traffic or unlawful content. They could easily have said that IP address is a VPN. It's a proxy server that's serving VPN clients that needs to be blocked at the ISP level. That was the plan all along. One of the plans.
1:30:26 I think you can, I think you definitely can. Of course you can do that. That would be, it's too late. These guys are always too late. Yeah. I mean, I'd like to see them try. Yeah. I mean, what do you do about banks? What do you do about these, these, these... kind of encrypted systems that have to exist or these companies can't do business. So it would have been a nightmare. Yes, it would have been a nightmare. And I think what's interesting is let's see how it works in California because they're going to start suing. California now has these laws on the books. You'll see. We're gonna find out exactly what would have happened and it's probably gonna happen in California because of the net neutrality laws that include those clauses.
1:31:13 I think in California, which is where you'd think it would happen because of course they put net neutrality in, California's also the home of all these content producers down in Hollywood. You'd think that this would be the perfect place for a testing ground. But because of the crunchiness of the whole state and the way everyone sees things, they won't be able to implement anything that would attack an ISP. Because besides having Hollywood, we also have the largest tech community, I believe, in California. And they're not gonna let this... I mean, they'd force... Net neutrality is not killing VPNs. Not yet.
1:31:54 Not yet. Well, this show will be long over by the time they get that far. You know. If there's only one thing I fundamentally disagree with is you base a lot of your assumptions of when something will happen on old situations before social media, before, in fact, often before the internet. Facebook is going to die in our lifetime, John, it will, even without a competitor to Facebook. It's going to happen. People have choices for other things, they get fed up, they have other things to do in life, all on their phone. But they still have other things to do. They're gonna leave things. Things will happen fast. I really believe things happen faster. Yeah, I know you believe that but I think your belief in this in particular with Facebook is wishful thinking more than it is objective analysis. Oh, okay. You hope it does. No, I don't care. I really don't care one way or the other. I will say this that I yes, I do base things on things like you say on the past.
1:32:52 Because people were predicting the demise of IBM, you know, during when the microcomputer came. But ah, it's the end of IBM, the microcomputer's gonna take them out, it's about time. And it was the same thing, it's wishful thinking. But we didn't have the internet then, we didn't have the same infrastructure, so of course. So what? Well, speaking of crunchy then, let me take us on a different topic with something to listen to. Podcast advertising. We don't do it, and there's reasons why we don't do it. But I have a piece of podcast advertising that is running rampant. You know, we've had the Squarespace, we've had the... What's the underwear everyone was advertising? Oh, God, there's an underwear thing going around. You're right. And also the mattresses. It's Casper the Mattress. What was the... What's the... The hell was that? The... Come on. Joe Rogan has them as a sponsor. I don't know the underwear. Yeah, it's an underwear thing. It's like, they're perfect fit. They're great.