

Dear Lamar Smith & House Judiciary: Have You Learned Nothing From SOPA? - casemorton
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120711/18211719667/dear-lamar-smith-house-judiciary-have-you-learned-nothing-sopa.shtml

======
nickolai
> In other words, they did the exact opposite of what the SOPA experience told
> them they should do.

No, from a strategic point of view, they did exactly what the SOPA experience
told them they should do. Which is that if a generous contributor wants a
possibly controversial bill passed, it has to be done as quickly and as
quietly as possible. Or at least quickly enough to leave no time for an
opposition movement to gather some serious momentum.

~~~
kbd
Exactly. Lamar Smith is even going to get reelected. Some lesson.

~~~
crististm
I wonder - how comes one idiot can put to work so many people?

------
nl
It's time the tech industry got proactive in stopping this.

If there was a campaign for statutory licensing for streaming videos (in the
same way there are statutory licenses for streaming music) then the MPAA would
be forced to play defence instead of constant attack.

Remember when SOPA occurred the biggest problem in Washington was that the
tech lobby had _no counter proposal_. It's time to fix that.

~~~
mindslight
The problem is that the true tech counter is 'leave the Internet the hell
alone and let progress take its course', and an organization where success is
measured by amount of rules imposed on the world can never understand this
concept. Any proposal that is politically palatable has to kowtow to
controlling the spread of information, and is thus just supporting _competing_
regressive interests.

~~~
ori_b
> _The problem is that the true tech counter is 'leave the Internet the hell
> alone and let progress take its course'_

Right. Can we put that into some sort of legislative form that would have to
be overturned in order for the MPAA and friends to have it's way? Some sort of
net-freedom legislation?

~~~
mindslight
Lofty ideals of freedom are always overridden by immediate tangible
exceptions. Constitutional amendments are supposed to be immune from lesser
statutes, but yet most of the Bill of Rights has been deprecated.

Which leaves us with the very specific decriminalization of copyright
infringement. I don't know how you're going to get _any_ popular support
behind that, given that much of even the tech community is unable to see the
fundamental contradiction between communication and copyright (with many
startups basing their business around the restricted flow of information!).

I think effort is better spent writing software to make the politics moot, but
good luck to you!

~~~
J3L2404
>the Bill of Rights has been deprecated.

Things aren't so black and white. You could argue that we should be allowed to
yell fire in a crowded building, but most people agree that should be
discouraged.

As for all information should be free, obviously you would have an exception
to restrict the flow of your private information. And then what is considered
private...

~~~
mindslight
"Fire!" has nothing to do with the speech, and everything to do with the
induced actions. The first amendment is also a terrible example, as it
foolishly says 'congress shall make no law', and thus has little meaning to
begin with. An actual example is how civilians are prohibited automatic
weapons but meanwhile they're standard issue to individuals in the military.
People would like to think USG is bound by logical rules and so invent
complexities to cloud their understanding, but the fundamental truth is that a
straightforward, simplistic reading of the Bill of Rights shows that it has
little bearing on modern society.

As to copying, the problem lies in trying to restrict the flow of information
between two consensual parties based on some notion of third party control.
This arises _from privacy_ (that you're trying to assert would not exist). As
actual policing of private copying is impossible, we end up with selective
enforcement based on bad luck or personal vendettas, which is immoral. Reality
should drive the model, not vice versa.

------
spinchange
Let's think about something for second: The MPAA was originally started way
back when in response to threats from Washington about wanting to regulate
motion picture content.

The intent of the MPAA film ratings system is to be _self-policing_ on the
industry the group lobbies for. Obviously time and modernity has seen their
raison d'être evolve into something even more self-interested and defensive
than for visible public benefit, but why can't Google, Wikipedia et al do
something similar?

I'm thinking of like campaigns designed to educate people about not just CC,
GPL, but all kinds of copyright, attribution norms, and what not.

And yeah, Google and the rest should probably include some stuff that is just
obviously flagrant piracy in things like Panda updates, filtering mechanisms,
etc without being asked. (gasp, horror of horrors, I know)

They should NEVER be forced to, but they should be proactive about it, show
that they are, and like the MPAA did once upon a time show Washington,
Hollywood, and the rights holders they can police themselves fine without
Government intervention.

Smith can go away tomorrow. The IP lobby is not. These people are embedded
into the U.S. DOJ and elsewhere. It's not going to stop.

*edits for punctuation, line breaks

------
HistoryInAction
From the other thread: "The bill has been held already after two SOPA
opponents-turned-cosponsors of this bill withdrew under fire, led by Ernesto
Falcon of Public Knowledge and much of the activist anti-SOPA crowd. Total
time since word first broke: ~2 days. These things /can/ move quickly, which
is why I'm paying attention to it for the startup community.

We're engaging with Rep. Issa and Chaffetz's office to express our continued
concerns.

Contact Troy Stock at Rep. Chaffetz's office
$firstname.$lastname@mail.house.gov

I don't have a staff contact yet for Rep. Issa's office, but I'll update when
I do.

I'll note that the startup community fucked up.

We had a decent opportunity to knock out Smith in the primary. We failed to
engage. We lost $350k, left it on the table, when a PAC approached local
organizers, offered the money if we had been able to identify 15,000 potential
Lamar Smith opponents in the district. Campaigning 101.

We were raising money for ads, and failed to do this basic foundational work,
meaning we failed to get the money, which knocked off at least one major
incumbent in Texas that day (Silvestre Reyes).

As it is, know how much SOPA was worth? Five percentage points, with Lamar
going from 83% in '10 to 77% in '12 during the primary.

EDIT: Look for an update today from TechDirt, assuming Masnick can confirm on
the record our reports that the bill has been held from further action at this
time.

EDIT2: Also, the IP Attache bill is apparently near-copies of pages 70-78 of
SOPA, though I haven't verified this."

------
c0ur7n3y
All legislation is essentially fund-raising at this point.

------
drivingmenuts
Lamer Smith has probably learned that he can get more money out of RIAA/MPAA
by almost succeeding than actually succeeding, but I'm a cynic.

I seriously doubt his constituents even know what he's up to.

~~~
fourmii
Exactly! It's not about his constituents.. It hasn't been one person, one vote
for a long time. Money talks...

------
electic
Going to be blunt. We can't keep this up every time a new bill appears. At
some point, we are going to get exhausted and he will win. I think it is us
who haven't learned anything. Instead of getting upset, we should be focused
on funding his opponent and getting him out of office. He is going to do what
he is going to do because his electorate is okay with it.

UPVOTE this if you believe in changing things or DON't if you want to whine.

~~~
ihsw
Trying to out-fund Lamar Smith will only escalate the battle (which we cannot
win). We must instead focus on de-funding him much like Rush Limbaugh has been
abandoned by his sponsors.

~~~
maurits
This will fundamentally change nothing. You are basically using the same
(money) tactics as the persons you oppose and therefore part of the problem of
the entanglement of money and politics. The fact that you are "justified" or
"right" in your political stance doesn't change that.

Real change, I fear, will have to be sought in your elective processes. And it
will undoubtedly be a long and painful process.

------
cheap
Dear America, Have you had enough of your Government yet?

~~~
fourmii
I would argue, it's not about the government. It's about how American politics
has become so mutated and corrupt...

~~~
maurits
Well, not to be blunt, but going back a 100 years or so gives me records of
senators openly complaining that some of their highly esteemed colleagues have
been put in their seats by the railway companies or companies dependent on
tariff walls.

And it kind of begs the question, why doesn't it ever change? It seems to me
that at the end of the day the majority is not dissatisfied enough to do away
with election spending, adding pork to bills, the super-pacs etc or to at
least alter the elective process in any fundamental way.

------
mmanfrin
What is there for him to learn from? He's still getting lobbyist money, and
we're still not doing anything about it.

