
The Only Way to Stop SOPA - jayro
https://plus.google.com/u/0/116160612483689327039/posts/5mjjrLxeSTA
======
pittsburgh
And the only way to stop future SOPAs is to make the system less corrupt,
which means taking money out of politics.

This is why Lawrence Lessig left the fight against intellectual property
craziness to focus on the underlying problem of corruption.

It's been years since I heard Lessig was shifting his focus to fight
corruption, and recently SOPA got me curious about what he's been up to and if
SOPA had brought him back out of "retirement". That led me to this article,
"Why Is Lawrence Lessig MIA In The Great SOPA Piracy Debate?"
[http://m.paidcontent.org/article/419-why-is-lawrence-
lessig-...](http://m.paidcontent.org/article/419-why-is-lawrence-lessig-mia-
in-the-great-sopa-piracy-debate/)

which led me to Lessig's response:
[http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/13119510676/me-mia-on-the-
sopa...](http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/13119510676/me-mia-on-the-sopa-soap-
opera)

which led me to his iniative to fight political corruption through campaign
finance reform: <http://www.rootstrikers.org/>

I'm actually glad to see that Lessig isn't letting SOPA distract him from his
fight against corruption which is the root of the problem. Stopping SOPA would
be a huge win, but it would only be a battle win, and as long as we're losing
the corruption war there are going to be many more SOPAs to fight in the
future.

~~~
dantheman
But Lessig is fighting the wrong battle, as long as the government is doling
out piles of money, picking winners and losers through regulations and
bailouts it will make sense to try and influence them, and there is no way to
stop "corruption", we should note that this isn't taking bribes etc, without
hampering legitimate forms of speech.

Lessig seems to be willing to limit our ability practice political speech
through regulations and limitations, and to entrench the current political
system by focus on government funded elections in which of course only major
parties will be able to speak.

~~~
alexqgb
I strongly encourage you to develop a (much) better understanding of what
Lessig has been arguing. A good place to start is here:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxCo2bE9Gtk>

Also worth noting: the problem you describe (corrupting influences on the
economy originating in Washington, as opposed to private interests capturing
Washington) is something Lessig addressed in his recent appearance on Jon
Stewart's program. There, he pointed out that these apparently divergent forms
of corruption are entirely compatible, and that they actually share the same
root, which is the obscene reliance of elected officials on a vanishingly
small number of campaign donors.

Depending on the day of the week, these donors can find themselves initiating
bribes, or being shaken down for bribes by officials wanting to increase their
takes. The stink flows both ways. And it ensnares people who, left to their
own devices, would have nothing to do with 'the trade' whatsoever.

Accordingly, Lessig is illuminating the entire economy of corruption,
correctly observing that you cannot choose to attack one branch instead of
another. Instead, you have to ignore all the branches, and go straight for the
root. If any good comes from SOPA, it will be in generating a backlash strong
enough to go after the root directly. The nerds, for what it's worth, are the
people to lead this. Why? Because we are, by nature, systems thinkers. And
this is a systemic problem of the very severest degree.

~~~
dantheman
I have a good understanding of what Lessig has been arguing; when I saw your
comment, I figured that I must of missed something so I watched the video and
it's exactly what I thought it would be. I'm a fan of his in a lot of ways,
but I often disagree with him when it comes to specifics -- we both see the
same problems but have different takes on their solutions.

He's not attacking the root, he's attacking the branches. If government did
not have the power to dole out favors no one would spend money trying to
influence it. That, however , is incompatible with his worldview. He wants a
strong federal government intervening a wide variety of issues - so that his
will can be imposed upon others (I say his, because it would be odd if he was
fighting so that someone could impose their will on him).

I completely agree with him on all the "corruption" claims, and on how they
get compensated when they leave - there is no disagreement there. Though he
does conflate 2 funding issues: 1. campaign funding 2. personal wealth. His
attack is only focused on #1, whereas #2 also exists and is mentioned in his
talk about former congressmen ending up @ K street or in large corporations.
Nothing in his proposal would address problem #2, for a congressman can pass
all sorts of bullshit laws and then go and work at Disney or Monsanto.

As for being systems thinkers, I agree - and in fact I think that's why
pushing power from the federal to state makes a lot of sense. It increases
stability, allows for experimentation and reduces the effects of corruption.
Personally, I abhor politics because it's all about violence and force and not
about consensus and compromise. Right now, we are stuck with a winner takes
all system with government when everywhere else in our lives we are seeing an
abundance of choice, the book Declaration of Independents has some good ideas
on this topic, if you're interested [http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-
Independents-Libertarian-P...](http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independents-
Libertarian-Politics-America/dp/1586489380)

Here's a franklin quote: "When the people find that they can vote themselves
money, that will herald the end of the republic."

------
mr_luc
I think that politicians could be made to hear the Internet's voice here.

Imagine if people started donating to a 'SOPA Supporter Anti-Reelection Fund',
where all donations go to targeting vulnerable SOPA supporters in the next
election.

The message would be that this is a "No-Forvigeness" issue come election time;
that 'The Internet is Bigger Than Democrat or Republican'; that this issue
matters more to economic/moral future of the country than gay marriage,
invading Iraq, or any number of divisive issues; people will donate money to
such a fund even knowing some of it will be used against bad apples in their
own parties; etc.

There's a ton of potential here, especially when vulnerable SOPA supporters
are identified, which will put the political crosshairs on specific
individuals. (Who _are_ the most vulnerable supporters come reelection time?
Newsworthiness is increased when reporters can put a face on the story).

If the Internet started building such an Anti-Reelection Fund, it might get
newsworthy pretty fast.

If the power of bored people over a holiday break was put to work, such a fund
could be very real in just a few days, and ready for its cover shot as a
credible political threat (donated funds, name-and-shame publicity) by the
time the committee reconvenes in January.

I'm just saying. I was surprised by how much political clout the Occupy
movement ended up with, despite not having any single unified idea of what
they want to change -- but, basically all they accomplished was to shape the
message and shift the dialogue around the economic crisis a bit.

I'd be disappointed if the Internet couldn't accomplish something more
concrete with SOPA.

Edit: also, if The Internets created such a fund, it might be politically
easier for various internet companies or rich geeks to support it via matching
funds.

~~~
ori_b
Let's make it exist. What would it take?

~~~
nicksergeant
If someone can come up with a specific definition of functionality, I'll build
it. Design and everything. I just don't know how something like this should
work.

~~~
mr_luc
If you're serious, then the website needs several things:

1\. a giant counter of # of people who've donated to the fund (or signed 'the
pledge', see below!),

2\. a live twitter stream for the #NoForgivenessFund hashtag (but someone
should come up with something better?)

3\. a scrolling list of names of SOPA supporters, weighted to avoid giving
much face time to 'safe' seats.

4\. a giant 'Donate' banana -- but, heck, we all know that.

Now, actually _collecting_ money for political purposes -- there, you may run
into legal problems.

Technically, you need to be a PAC to do the things that the Fund would want to
do. See: Stephen Colbert. It starts to get really serious really fast.

As a short-term measure, maybe make the website collect twitter/facebook
accounts, and let people validate an email address, and ... hey, how's this
for an idea?

A 'Pledge'.

Like some partisans have taken a pledge never to raise taxes, make a similar
pro-Internet pledge that people can 'sign' with an email and twitter/fb/g+
account. Part of the pledge will be to vote against and donate to the
opponents of anyone who aids and abets anti-internet legislation. The Pledge
would be an opportunity for flowery writing, etc.

So you could have a giant list of people -- and later companies -- that would
be signing this pledge, and would explicitly be telling you "send me an email
with a link to a donate button when you've got something ready to go". Maybe
they could specify how much they think they'll be able to donate. (And of
course it could be used like The Pledge on politicians).

Probably makes sense to build the pledge site without waiting for a PAC.

Thoughts? Heh, _man_ this is fun to think about ... I'm going to have to cut
myself off sometime soon. Must... not... waste time on politics!

------
ojbyrne
So I was thinking - after SOPA passes, what's to stop us (i.e. those opposed
to it), from uploading copyrighted things to every site related to the people
supporting it (RIAA, MPAA, movie sites, government sites) that have some
comment feature or whatever.

And then requesting that those sites be taken down. Let loose 4chan and the
absurdity of the whole thing will become clear.

~~~
markbao
Well, nothing would stop us from _doing_ so, but whatever governing body has
the authority to enforce SOPA will probably have exceptions for certain sites,
especially to those who monetarily and non-monetarily supported SOPA itself.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
SOPA is never going to be used on anything that the lemmings would notice
(Facebook, for instance). The people who want SOPA in place can't risk losing
the tolerance of the general public.

~~~
dangrossman
Except SOPA creates new private rights of action. You don't have to convince
anyone in the government to enforce, you can go to court yourself against a
website.

However, since AFAIK most of the bill only targets foreign websites, you can't
go after Facebook or YouTube. You could wait until someone uploads a torrent
of your material to ThePirateBay, however...

------
x3c
I, for one, am glad they're not using money to get out of this. Pragmatism has
replaced idealism in this day and age. I'm not even sure that its the ideals
that are keeping tech mammoths from bribing US congress. But I do think that
its a very dangerous precedent to set, buying your way out of a problem.
Irrespective of what comes of SOPA, there will always be things that you need
to fix and taking such shortcuts is not the solution.

I know I'm quoting a TV series (24, Jack Bauer), but I hope HN will evaluate
the following dispassionately (irrespective of what they think of the source
of the quote): "When you cross that line, it always starts off with a small
step. Before you know it, you're running as fast as you can in the wrong
direction just to justify why you started in the first place. These laws were
written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, I know that these laws
have to be more important than....... "

I'm sure many of you will think my post reeks of naivete but I'd rather be
"naive" than lose hope and give in to the shady tactics.

Once we start taking the easy way out, we lose the sense of urgency and the
passion to actually solve the problem. When next such bill comes, everyone
will lay back and watch someone with big pockets come in and save the day.
Things wil never change that way.

------
y3di
It feels wrong to endorse this as a solution. This is one of the biggest
problems with the current American government. Instead of contributing to this
issue we should be trying to fix this system that allows for open corruption
and corporate interests controlling politics.

What's going to happen next time a piece of legislation turns up that we don't
like? Should we just continue to pay off congress?

------
AndyKelley
Paying money to stop something seems counter-productive. Why wouldn't pro-SOPA
supporters just keep trying to pass the bill? We'd have to be sinking $80M
into politics on a recurring basis. When I think about something so depressing
as this, it makes me want to stick my head in the sand or move to another
country.

~~~
mahyarm
You'll find it in pretty much any country if a money center inside that
country wants something out of the status quo.

------
bad_user
I think this is a dangerous line of though.

I don't know from where the expression " _fighting fire with fire_ " came
from, it probably applies to war or something, but in such a case the fire is
only a side-effect of the enemy dropping freaking bombs on you. And any
firefighter will tell you that fire is fought with water and fighting it with
fire is just plain dumb.

 _The road to hell is paved with good intentions_ , btw. I'm sure that some of
the pro-SOPA companies have legitimate reasons for wanting extra protections.
Dangerous counterfeits, like drugs, is one legitimate reason. And because they
are businesses, they don't give a shit about human rights like free speech.
But what company does care enough to put the interests of their shareholders
on a second place? Nobody. Any solution that doesn't give power to the small
players / individuals is NOT a solution, only a short-term victory that only
fixes a symptom and that will end badly.

The author here forgets something - money from lobbying is only good for one
thing - buying votes. This works out great, because the masses of people are
usually ignorant and don't know shit about the details of such legislation.
The only thing they'll hear is how SOPA saves their jobs. They'll also receive
a pen, a teeshirt, a free drink and the vote is guaranteed.

Which is why the ultimate weapon against SOPA is raising awareness to the
point of getting individuals to do something about it.

~~~
ricree
>I don't know from where the expression "fighting fire with fire" came from,
it probably applies to war or something, but in such a case the fire is only a
side-effect of the enemy dropping freaking bombs on you. And any firefighter
will tell you that fire is fought with water and fighting it with fire is just
plain dumb.

If I recall correctly (and wikipedia seems to back me up), it comes from
creating firebreaks (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak> ) via controlled
burns.

------
nikcub
an early mentor of mine told me that you have to work with and then subvert
the environment you are in, rather than bitch about it. always stuck with me.

he just happen to run a large black market import operation in communist east
europe.

~~~
DodgyEggplant
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom For trying to change the system
from within I'm coming now, I'm coming to reward them First we take Manhattan,
then we take Berlin

------
gojomo
Well-targeted money can be part of the solution, but if it's your main tool,
and you reach for your wallet too quickly, the racket will just raise its
prices.

Once legislatures know there is a wealthy, well-organized group that will pay
to stop something, they can actually create new proposed legislation simply to
shake out a fresh round of 'protect me' contributions from affected interests.
In California, these are traditionally called "juice bills":

[http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/juice_bill_...](http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/juice_bill_1/)

------
johngalt
tldr; The only way to stop the mob is to pay more protection money.

~~~
illamint
I think it's naive and dangerously idealistic for the tech community to sit
idly by, decrying the state of legislative affairs and refusing to play the
game for the sake of honor or some arbitrary sense of intellectual
superiority. I'm not saying that the situation isn't shitty or that we
shouldn't work to fix what is clearly a broken system, but the IP lobby is
playing for _keeps_ here and we're throwing around open letters and hashtags.

~~~
gasull
All you can do throwing money at the problem is buying time. The
MPAA/RIAA/etc. will throw more money than us, because they can. It will be
endless. They can create a new bill that is almost the same as SOPA, and then
we would need to throw money against it again. And again, and again, and
again.

If someone raises money to lobby the congress against SOPA, I'll contribute,
but just to show that it won't work.

------
masmullin
I'm not a US citizen, and I don't fully understand all of the US laws and
such; but doesn't this SOPA bill violate some fundamental freedom of
information ideal?

Just because thepiratebay.org exists doesn't mean that the sole use for it is
piracy (although copyright infringement is obviously it's first usage). One
can go to the pirate bay to see which TV shows are popular, judge whether you
would like to watch them based on the popularity, and then go and buy the
material from a reputable source.

------
keeptrying
I'm surprised Google, Apple et al, haven't pooled in a few $100 million to
fight this. I don't understand why they didn't do this already.

~~~
superbeefy
Apple actually supports SOPA [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/11/17/which-
tech-companie...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/11/17/which-tech-
companies-back-sopa-microsoft-apple-and-27-others/)

~~~
tzs
No, an organization that Apple is a member of supported SOPA. You can't infer
from that what Apple's position was. Furthermore, as is noted as the very
first thing in the linked article, that organization reconsidered.

------
wikkiwa
Money will impossible to get out of politics as long as the government has
massive power to regulate the economy. As long as congress can give subsidies
and contracts to favored industries and firms (necessarily at the expense of
less favored firms and industries, who have to compete in the market) and also
increase taxes and regulations on disfavored industries (finance, oil), then
businesses would be insane to not spend as much money as they need to paying
off senators to make sure they don't get screwed.

Everyone who votes for politicians that promise to increase Washington's power
needs to realize that they're also voting to increase the influence of money
in politics.

------
moocow01
Completely agree... its sad how corrupt the US government is and its all
bundled up in official terms that everyone takes for granted - lobbying,
contributions, etc. US politics has become more and more a corrupt money
grubbing system where actual governance and society is not considered. The
people voting on this despite what they say are not thinking about how this
affects the US society so our pleas are falling on deaf ears.

If it passes it seems like the unique power this community has is technical
expertise. As some have already been doing, we should be talking about
solutions that allow society to bypass SOPA (hopefully without anyone getting
sent to Guantanamo).

------
acabal
This is what I've been wondering aloud for a long time. Politics is bought and
paid for. It's not the ideal situation, but it's the reality. Given that, why
isn't Silicon Valley spending more money lobbying for Internet-positive
legislation?

The media cartels are spending millions purchasing heinous oppressive
legislation. Google and co can and should do better than a strongly-worded
letter. (Read: can and should be spending more money than the media cartels to
buy laws that favor their bottom line, and thus indirectly the internet in
general.)

------
mwsherman
I understand the reasoning here, and it has a logic to it, but I think it’s
wrong. The tech industry will simply become part of the problem, and
politicians will become empowered — more suitors competing for their
attention.

Instead, I believe the approach to GoDaddy is a better example: that bad
policy will hurt politicians’ ability to maintain support.

The Internet, and thus the industry, has enormous reach with voters (and
lobbyers like GoDaddy). Swaying the support system is our best bet, and much
more honest.

------
danberger
Probably the best way to stop SOPA and show Members of Congress that we're
serious is to make sure Lamar Smith (TX-21), the bill's original sponsor,
loses. I'm still not sure which Dem is running against him though [1]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_distr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_district)

~~~
gyardley
Trying to make a good chunk of the Texas Hill Country vote Democrat? Why not
pick an easier task, like trying to empty the ocean with a teacup?

I hate to be harsh, but Lamar is in office until he dies. I'd focus on
congressmen in swing districts.

------
DodgyEggplant
Free anti lobbying activist paying dirty money is SOPA ultimate victory. Money
drove every regime since the Roman empire (and probaly ever). We have to let
the new tools emerge: Internet, sharing, connect people. Let them work and
evolve. Yes, it will take time. Yes, we will loose battles. But Ultimately we
will win for good.

------
chernevik
Washington responds to money, but what do they use the money for? If we assume
they're corrupt, they would use the money to 1) enrich themselves or 2) win
re-election.

And when you think about it, it doesn't make sense to enrich themselves so
blatantly. People go to jail that way. Voters don't like politicians
transparently bought and paid for.

And "campaign contributions" are _peanuts_ against the trillions sluicing
every year through the federal fisc. Look at the money these guys make trading
stock, in their "retirement" salaries as consultants and lobbyists, heads of
foundations and executives in corporations with business before the
government. Even if they're corrupt, they wouldn't be _stupid_ corrupt.

So politicians use campaign contributions to get re-elected. It isn't always
above board, it's often employment of consultants and advisors whose chief. If
you're sitting in a safe seat, your concern is your primary, and your real
rivals are people of your own party below you. But they also help you win the
general, by getting your name out there and shaping perceptions of you.

And that's the problem buying a corrupt Congressman. Let him want the money,
he still must balance the image problem of taking the money. They can take the
money at the margins. But after a point they can't take anymore without
hurting themselves more than they help.

So how can the movie biz spend so much on this? The issue is marginal to the
real drivers of the pols' incumbency, so they can afford to take more of the
money on this one. And the showbiz lobbyists, who've been doing this a _very_
long time, know this, and got there first. It shouldn't surprise me to learn
that money has done here as much as it could possibly do.

I don't think SOPA is inevitable. But it won't be stopped by imagining that
politicians are simply stupid greedy.

~~~
zipdog
If the money is used for re-election campaigns (which is what I've heard
elsewhere) then why not cut out the middle-man? Instead of giving money to
congresspeople with nio tech savvy to get re-elected, why not use the funds to
get some tech-savvy congresspeople elected?

------
sleight42
Theres also the president.

In '08, my wife and I sent a decent chunk of change to his campaign. I just
wrote them that if he signs SOPA he loses our vote an our support.

At least it's something...

------
rkon
Boycotting companies who make political donations IS one way of using money to
win the fight. We can see which politicians and organizations those companies
donate to, which means they need to stop donating or risk dealing with the
backlash.

Sorry, but I guess being an "aggressive observer of politics" isn't a valid
qualification for dispensing political advice.

