
Reeling MPAA declares DNS filtering "off the table" - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/reeling-mpaa-declares-dns-filtering-off-the-table.ars
======
gigawatt
I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that the MPAA gets to
decide what's "off the table" in legislation. Is there no longer even a
pretense of separation of corporations and the government?

~~~
jasonlotito
Not that I support the MPAA, but it isn't some faceless entity. It's made up
of people. And the people that make up the MPAA have given the MPAA the power
to speak on their behalf. So, when a representative speaks with a member of
the government, he's doing it on behalf of people. Most likely, people that
are his constituents.

The people opposing SOPA did the same thing. We organized via various
organizations (such as Reddit, for example), and called or wrote to our law
maker. In some capacity, we had Google representing us.

MPAA isn't taking things off the table. Rather, they are working to propose
something that doesn't include some feature that was hotly contested.

So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with
proposals?

~~~
un1xl0ser
>So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with
proposals?

On it's face, nothing. Deeper however, too many laws are passed because
lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of. I
don't have a lot of time to push my agenda, but corporations convert money
into people's time.

Lots of us aren't even convinced that there is an issue. If there is, lets see
the numbers and talk about them, and if we see something that needs a
solution, we can come up with one.

This is a jobs saving law, they should be focused on jobs creation. They can
save jobs by outlawing outsourcing, but nobody things that is a good idea.

~~~
jasonlotito
> Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to
> ensure that corporate interests are taken care of.

Except, SOPA isn't passed yet, and so far, the push back has been successful.
There is still a fight, but the corporations aren't winning.

And we do have the means to voice our opinion. We have our own version of
lobbyists. Not only do we have the ability to directly contact our law makers,
we can also support organizations who do have the time to fight these battles
for us. EFF is a great example.

<https://supporters.eff.org/donate>

They do accept donations.

Other organizations out there include Mozilla, Apache, etc. Couple this with
support of companies that support the things you want. And if the companies do
support something (for example, BSA's support of SOPA, and by extension, Apple
and MS), you complain.

> I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda

I can throw that back at you: if your agenda isn't important enough to put
forth effort, and for you to take a part in the process, how will I know your
opinion?

If you don't speak up, you can't complain when no one listens.

Note: I'm not trying to insult you. Hopefully I don't come off that harsh. =)

~~~
un1xl0ser
> If you don't speak up, you can't complain when no one listens.

I do spend quite a bit of time engaging with politicians. Certainly if I am
taking my time out to discuss this with not only my peers online, but in
person. I written my congress people, and will be taking this into
consideration when I go to the polls next. Yes yes, this is how politics work
here.

That said, I don't think that you are fully understanding the amount of time
and money that corporate interests put into politics. Or maybe I am not
understanding it correctly. I'm more aware of the amount of money in politics
than the number of people paid to influence politicians, but that should
probably be reported somewhere I hope.

> Hopefully I don't come off that harsh.

No problem, I'm used to dealing with your type. Sometimes I can even be that
way given circumstances.

Now back to C-SPAN.

~~~
jasonlotito
> That said, I don't think that you are fully understanding the amount of time
> and money that corporate interests put into politics.

Why would you think that? Based off my few comments, that didn't' touch on
this? It's an absurd assumption to make, if I might be so bold. I'm not blind
to the amount of pressure people at corporations put into politics. However,
I'm not blinded by the fact that they are, in fact, people, and not some
faceless corporation.

> No problem, I'm used to dealing with your type. Sometimes I can even be that
> way given circumstances.

My type? Hopeful? Polite? Intelligent? Not blinded?

Why thank you. May you continue to strive to be like me, as you seem to want.

~~~
un1xl0ser
> It's an absurd assumption to make,

I agree. I can be absurd sometimes.

> My type? Hopeful? Polite? Intelligent? Not blinded?

Direct.

You mentioned what's wrong with "people" coming in with their legislation. I
guess that I would re-state that by the time laws get to discussion in the
public, the laws are mostly written by politicians that are heavily lobbied.
Something that goes through that type of taint by money or business interests
is not always in the best interest of the people. Do the members of congress
get some things better than technology? Maybe, I kind of doubt it. I watched a
few hours of the house talking about energy changes, and it was clear who was
lobbying for what. Nobody was actually watching from the House floor, but I
assume that everyone get's C-SPAN in their offices in case something
interesting comes up.

I have to compete very hard to get my agenda's addressed. I do have my own
time and money to spend on politics, and I do it. That said, it feels like a
drop in the bucket, and I think that is not just my feeling but actually the
case.

I like donating to the EFF, a great idea. That is just one of the areas that I
am interested in. The more causes that I add (and there are MANY), the more I
need to pay to combat the fact that there is too much money in politics.

So, lets go back to corporations not being people, reasonable and accountable
PACs, and stop having revolving door career lobbyists/politicians.

I really like our system of government, but I think that it is fair to level
the playing field.

------
TDL
It sounded to me as though DNS filtering was off the table until the
controversy dies down. I don't think the MPAA/RIAA is going anywhere. They
want to control the technology & destroy it if necessary. This is a strategic
retreat on their part.

~~~
sehugg
Yes, my take as well. DNS filtering is the easiest thing to retreat on (it was
the only thing specifically called out in the White House's response) and the
NFL et al. can continue to work with ICE to seize domains the old-fashioned
way.

------
mlapida
Yesterday SOPA was "shelved", today DNS filtering is "off the table". I'm not
sure I follow.

~~~
InclinedPlane
SOPA was shelved _in its current form_. And DNS filtering was one mechanism to
enforce the provisions of SOPA. That doesn't mean that the industry and
congress have given up the basic premise of SOPA: the idea that all content on
the internet should be pre-screened thoroughly for any hint of IP
infringement, that standards of evidence and due process should be thrown out
the window and the mere act of accusation should be sufficient to warrant
adjudication of a punishment on the site owners.

------
Canada
Dear MPAA: You can take the whole table and shove it up your ass.

------
drivingmenuts
How about a movement to destroy the MPAA?

Or at least a movement to hit them where it hurts until the MPAA starts coming
up with some different ideas that don't suck?

Start striking at the MPAA directly.

~~~
mattmiller
I think that is a good idea. We should have a movement to destroy destructive
entities like the MPAA, RIAA, NAR, and other groups that inhibit innovation
with lobbying and lawsuits.

How do we do that?

------
hughw
The MPAA/RIAA argument amounts to: We would like to do business on the
Internet but existing Internet architecture isn't satisfactory for our
business model. Let's make a law to change the architecture.

------
maeon3
Notice the stealth loaded question: censoring the internet is cool, just all
this backlash is because dns blocking. They are thinking hmm, how can we get
dns blocking without all this backlash?

