

The Obama administration is still voicing support for SOPA. - mcrittenden
http://a.fightforthefuture.org/sign/obama-sopa

======
blhack
Guys, these whitehouse.gov petitions are completely meaningless.

~~~
mistercow
Signing a petition is a symbolic act that causes you to commit to yourself the
idea "I am the sort of person who cares about this issue". Petitions are, at
best, only _secondarily_ for influencing the powers that be. They are
primarily for influencing the people who sign them.

~~~
jamesbritt
_Signing a petition is a symbolic act that causes you to commit to yourself
the idea "I am the sort of person who cares about this issue"._

Or let you believe you've actually done something, so now you can direct your
attention to other things.

Is there any evidence to show that signing a petition makes a person more
inclined to take additional practical action?

~~~
mistercow
>Is there any evidence to show that signing a petition makes a person more
inclined to take additional practical action?

Yes, there is some evidence. In Chapter 3 of _Influence: Science and Practice_
, Robert Cialdini discusses this kind of self-image effect, citing several
studies including one in particular about petitions[1]. These kinds of
"commitments" (even though they are not actually binding) really do affect our
behavior, although the end results are not necessarily particularly issue-
focused or predictable.

One thing we can say though with some certainty: if you convince someone to
sign their name to a petition that says "stop X", it will take significant
mental effort for them to later decide that they actually support X.

[1] <http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/4/2/195/>

~~~
jamesbritt
Thank you, quite interesting. There's a caveat, though (from
[http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/freed_f...](http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/freed_fras_foot.html)):

 _Remember, these were innocuous requests from a non-profit group with
relatively non-controversial goals. This technique may not produce the same
results for more political or more controversial requests._

------
Duff
Perhaps this is just another case where the Obama administration is "speaking
in shorthand."

It sounds like the president is supporting SOPA, but in actuality he is
speaking in some law professor dialect where words do not mean what they seem
to mean.

~~~
cpher
Yes, because we're not capable of understanding his "shorthand" descriptions
of things--SOPA, ObamaCare, etc. Instead, we need another entity to translate
what we're supposed to hear--e.g. the media.

IIRC, Reagan's "shorthand" descriptions were directly on point and were not
mis-understood by even foreign countries.

I guess Obama isn't the great communicator everyone thought he was...

~~~
Retric
If you compare some of Reagan's speeches with what he did and you can find
plenty of cases of 'short hand'. Politicians need to communicate so stupid
people like what they are saying, taken out of context they don't say anything
embarrassing, AND still convey nuanced ideas to other politicians out there.

Consider back when Clinton wanted to change healthcare many Republicans
advocated for 'ObamaCare' which directly copied a host of republican ideas.
Republicans did not actually mean what they where saying, they just wanted to
shift the debate without saying we like the current system. Which is why you
can find so many old speeches that are at great odds with what the party is
saying today.

~~~
nhebb
I think you're confusing two people at the Heritage Foundation (Stuart Butler
and Edmund Haislmaier) with "many" Republicans.

~~~
Retric
Umm, what about:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_refor...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform)

I know it's 7 years ago, but Mitt Romney is probably the next Republican
presidential candidate and it's not like the party penalized him for his past
stance. Or even really talks about it. And if you really want to dig into it,
look at who voted for in in that states legislator.

------
giberti
I can't find the source for the quote, "we still need legislation for blocking
foreign websites." The referenced document doesn't actually say that, in fact,
the word "blocking" doesn't even appear in the document at all.

Seems like the author of the petition assumed the reader would thing tl;dr and
just assume it was accurate.

------
gst
"For petitions, open letters, or similar public communications that you've
signed or completed, we treat your name, city, state, and comments as public
information."

Nice. So if I sign the petition they are allowed to sell my data?

~~~
bmj
Isn't this the way petitions work? I mean, if a group brings a petition to a
city council, what good is it if it's full of names? Simply saying "15,000
people support this" without enumerating those supporters doesn't seem very
effective.

And that also seems to be standard verbiage for online petitions. See this one
(<http://civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/>):

 _Petitions and Surveys

For petitions and surveys you've signed or completed, we treat your name,
city, state, and comments as public information - for example, we may provide
compilations of petitions, with your comments, to the President and
legislators, other targets, or to the press. We will not make your street
address publicly available, but we may transmit it to members of Congress and
to the President as part of a petition. This is a standard industry practice
in such situations. In no such case will we disclose your email address or
phone number without your permission. We may also make your comments, along
with your first name, city, and state available to the press and public
online. Under circumstances where we determine that members may be misusing
our systems for malicious purposes (for example, using the numbers we provide
to make harassing phone calls), such activities may be reported to law
enforcement agencies. In such cases, MoveOn may release personally
identifiable information, including name and address, to those agencies._

------
btilly
This should not be a surprise.

When I saw that Obama picked Biden as VP I knew that something this would
happen. He has been a friend of Hollywood's for a very, very long time.

Furthermore he and Obama agreed to the Carter/Mondale model of how to run the
VP office, where the VP is in the white house, in every meeting with the
President and is the last man in the room. That gives Biden zero
visibility..and a finger in every decision. Hence real power. (As opposed to
the way that Reagan/Bush reportedly did things, where Bush's job consisted of
checking each day that Reagan was still alive, and then taking the rest of the
day off.)

------
davidu
Victoria Espinel is not the same as Obama. She is on her last legs in the
Whitehouse, and I think most agree that she was a bad hire who has assembled
an even worse team. She is the typical B hires C and C hires D players.

She'll be on her way out soon enough. I'm sure she'll land in MPAA land or
somewhere equally gross.

------
zaidf
Obama Admin needs to straight up create a position that is the OPPOSITE of the
Copyright Czar...someone who can internally bat against much of what the
Copyright Czar comes up with.

~~~
sleighboy
I'm sure they'll do that right after they create the Peaceful Diplomacy and
Non-Intervention Department.

------
vaksel
supporting opposition to bills like this is only the first step.

there needs to be a campaign to make them pass a law or even an amendment to
the constitution to prevent them from trying to slip by when noone is looking

they only need to get lucky once...and its a 100x harder to repeal a law than
it is to implement it.

------
jostmey
The article provides a citation as their source. The source is a PDF file on
whitehouse.gov, published by the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
(IPEC). All the document says is that IPEC supports SOPA. Does this mean the
White House supports the legislation?

~~~
drucken
Head of the Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
(IPEC) is appointed by Obama and confirmed by U.S. Senate.

The White House supports it because it _is_ the White House.

------
ryankshaw
so I am totally in support of blocking SOPA/ACTA and as a developer it is
really important to me but the call to action at the bottom is a little
misguided.

It actually makes me proud of humanity that more people want to petition for
"stop expanding trade with vietnam at the expense of human rights" than
stopping ACTA. the latter being somewhat of a #firstwordproblem and the former
dealing with human slavery, death, etc.

so when you go sign the petition, sign the "stop ACTA" one AND something else
that is, in the grand scheme of things, more inportant to human life.

~~~
J3L2404
Although I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment about 1st world problems,
can you expand on why as a developer you are in favor of more piracy? I feel
the big guys will always be able to protect themselves and it is the little
guys who really suffer.

~~~
gsoltis
Being against SOPA/ACTA/etc. should not be construed as being pro-copyright
infringement. He might simply be pro-due process and pro-innocent until proven
guilty. Those positions alone are enough to cause one to not support these
sorts of bills.

~~~
J3L2404
I wish you were right, but pg has clearly stated anything copyable deserves no
copyright.

~~~
gsoltis
That the original commenter is pro-piracy does not follow from pg having
voiced an opinion on copyright. Claiming as much only serves to mask the
problems with these bills. Perhaps you meant to limit your statement on
wanting more copyright infringement to pg?

~~~
J3L2404
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I in no way meant to put words in the
original commenters mouth and truly want to know why being a developer means
you are very concernered about a bill that protects intellectual property.
Anyone can be concerned about the rule of law. What is it as a _developer_
that causes concern about SOPA? Surely you want your products to make you
money. Many new users of this site think that not paying for stuff is a good
enough reason.

~~~
gsoltis
Speaking for myself (I am also a developer), I am concerned with the
circumvention of due process and presumption of guilt that is built into these
bills. If I am operating a service that someone files a complaint against,
especially if I am a startup, I have very little recourse before my business
is trashed. This is independent of whether or not I am guilty of anything, or
my users have submitted infringing content to my service. Content owners and
federal agencies have a historical lack of concern about the accuracy of their
claims, so I would like to ensure that they have to be rigorous before they
can take down my service. They should have to prove to a judge that I am in
fact in violation of the law before they can cut off my source of income.

Speaking to the philosophical issue that pg raised, I believe people have a
right to attempt to make money from their efforts. I also believe that they
most definitely do not have a right to be successful in that attempt,
regardless of how much effort they have put in. They also do not have a right
to continued success if the world around them changes. What works on Monday
may not work on Friday, and the fact that it worked Monday should not serve as
a guarantee that Friday's endeavor has a right to success. If the effort it
takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a 3 minute song
becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a right to be
successful in doing so. The same goes for the software I produce. If my
securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on society,
then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it. Personally, I
interpret a circumvention of due process and an attitude of "guilty until a
successful appeal is filed" as a burden on society.

~~~
J3L2404
This is the most salient explanation that I have seen on HN, although some
points need rebutting. For instance

>If the effort it takes to secure a number of the size required to represent a
3 minute song becomes a burden on society, then I do not think they have a
right to be successful in doing so.

That is only true _after_ the law has been changed, at least from a legal
standpoint.

> If my securing it from copying that I do not approve of becomes a burden on
> society, then I do not have a right to be successful in securing it.

Same as above.

Most responses on HN have been something like "if you want to make money from
your creation you should use kickstarter and give it away after that". This is
a very foolish attitude both realistically and philosophically. I have every
right to use the current laws to my advantage and an obligation to my
investors to do exactly that.

I have no problem with flouting laws if they are truly unjust, but I have no
sympathy for piracy profiteers like Kim Dotcom because he knew very well what
he was doing. Copying between friends can never be stopped but if you make
enough money from it you are a valid target.

~~~
gsoltis
I would consider the law unjust once it crosses the line into being a burden
on society. That's obviously not a black and white transition, although I gave
part of what I consider to be over that line in my last response. From my
perspective, SOPA, as proposed, was (is?) an unjust law, in that it meets the
criteria I specified for what I consider a burden.

It's worth making the distinction between legal rights and natural rights.
Obviously, if a particular draconian and unjust law were passed that
guaranteed the right to secure your 3kb of data, then you have the legal right
to do so. That fact has mostly no bearing on your natural right to do so.

It's also worth noting that sharing between friends and someone making a large
profit off of sharing are not the only options. It is not hard to envision a
situation with a large amount of sharing and no one profiting directly the way
kim dotcom did. It has the scale of the profiteers, but the intent and
profitability of the between-friends sharing. I think it is a lot harder to
find someone worthy of being called a criminal in such a situation.

------
spinchange
Of course they are. Isn't there a revolving door between the RIAA/MPAA and the
DOJ?

------
notatoad
what are you going to do, vote republican instead?

~~~
btilly
Actually this issue is important enough for me that I would.

I'm curious who is going to run as the Republican candidate for Senator this
year in California. Because if they manage to pick a relative moderate (like
Meg Whitman, but not Carly Fiorina), I'll be voting Republican.

------
zupreme
SOPA is simply the old-guard clutching at the side of the cliff for dear life
as they, inevitably, plummet to their deaths.

Next subject.

~~~
cowkingdeluxe
Except they have a lot more resilience than the tech industry does and will
eventually get something passed.

You can't stick your head in the sand and hope they go away.

~~~
tomjen3
The problem is that the tech industries are nice guys. We aren't prepared to
play to win, we won't bribe politicians, blackmail them with pictures of their
affairs when they won't take the bribes, have the law firms involved debared,
have the CPS take their children. Spread rumors and destroy the friendships,
connections and trusts the lobbiests depend on.

That we cannot comeup with such ideas are åroperly a good thing but it is also
a pretty large handicap when we are up against people like the MPAA (who,
granted may not be playing as dirty as these suggestions).

~~~
gtaylor
I hear Yahoo is getting pretty evil these days. Maybe they'd do the dirty
deeds for us.

------
Jach
Can HN have a moratorium on political submissions for just two months?

~~~
walru
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the
fatigue of supporting it." \--Thomas Paine

~~~
Jach
"I object to teaching of slogans intended to befog the mind, of whatever kind
they may be." ~Franz Boas

(Hmm, someone didn't like that quoteback. Okay, here's another one, from yours
truly. "Gentlemen, I'm just as concerned as you are about those Redcoats
overrunning our town! I just don't think my front yard is an adequate, let
alone optimal, place to defend it.")

