

Tell Obama And Dodd: No Backroom Dealing, No New SOPA - eduadecastro
http://act.demandprogress.org/cms/thanks/new_sopa?action_id=5499002&amp;akid=.327668.cNqkqc&amp;form_name=act&amp;rd=1&amp;taf=1
The link is http://act.demandprogress.org/act/new_sopa/
======
nhebb
The political buzz generated by this is slightly less than a gnat in the Rose
Garden. Demand Progress is a liberal group. Obama can safely ignore this
effort and most likely won't lose votes among the Democratic base. If he
alienates Hollywood, though, he could lose out on significant fundraising,
which is critical for his re-election.

------
eduadecastro
The link is <http://act.demandprogress.org/act/new_sopa/>

------
ericingram
The real problem is, people (not just politicians) want to hold on to the
paradigm that you should be allowed to monopolize an idea. Ideas are not
scarce resources like food or wood. Everyone on the planet can simultaneously
use an idea without violating the physical property of anyone else.

I think in general, people like to fantasize about coming up with a great idea
first, and becoming rich from it. This is only possible when the government
allows you to monopolize an idea. SOPA is about monopolizing ideas.

------
untog
I'm not sure that "No New SOPA" is really that useful a thing to demand from
the President. Given that the entire bill could potentially be rewritten,
there's no central concept of what "SOPA" is.

Let's lay down a series of principles that we do not want violated, rather
than say "don't do that again". The same applies to "backroom dealing"- when
is a deal a backroom and and when isn't it? Let's be specific in what we want,
here.

~~~
chollida1
I don't think it's the website's fault as much as the links submitter.

The correct link has been posted in another comment.

~~~
untog
I realised that, and amended my post. So apologies- your reply looks out of
context now.

