
The next SOPA - dpkendal
http://www.marco.org/2012/01/20/the-next-sopa
======
snowwrestler
But I like to watch movies. I think a lot of movies are great--great enough to
pay for them. Why should I shoot myself in the foot to keep someone else from
shooting me in the foot?

This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations:
it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political
donations are made by people who are not lobbyists.

No one raised more political money in the history of this nation than Barack
Obama during his presidential campaign, and the letter from his administration
helped kill the bills. How about Rep. Issa and Sen. Wyden? Guess what, they
got into office by spending donated money as well.

The problem isn't money, the problem is engagement. The tech industry,
particularly on the Internet entrepreneurial side, has long prided itself on
staying out of Washington. Well, now we see the consequence of that approach:
it took a last-minute emergency OMG shitstorm to stop some bills--bills that
could have easily been shaped, adjusted, or stopped much earlier if the
industry had been engaged and paying attention.

The U.S. government is participatory. It will respond to citizen wishes, but
only if citizens actively and continuously make their wishes known.

And it is inclusive. No matter how much you might think copyright should end,
or that the MPAA should just go away forever and die, there are enough people
who disagree with you that it's just not going to happen. Internet companies
and advocates need to get comfortable with continuously engaging content
companies in the legislative process, seeking common ground, and compromising.

IP law is not a winnable war. It is an ongoing negotiation that must be
managed forever.

~~~
DanI-S
_This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations:
it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political
donations are made by people who are not lobbyists._

If lobbyists' money didn't give their words extra weight, why would they
donate any of it?

~~~
marchdown
There are two interlocked selection mechanisms: politicians select the issues
they pursue, and sponsors select the politicians whom they want to give voice
(and money).

In dumb evolutionary environments and in anthropics, there is no direct
feedback between these two mechanisms. Bacteria get born, behave in a
predefined way, and either procreate or die. Successful bacteria are not
smart, but simply lucky. They are selected for fitness by a dumb process.

Similarly, activists enter politics to pursue certain interests, these
interests do not change significantly, and then the newcomer either gathers
enough support to get elected and influence public opinion, or doesn't.
Sponsors select the politicians which have already taken a favorable stance,
and help them get heard and get elected. Successful activists are those which
pursue important issues which attract support and sponsorship.

I suspect that this is how the system is supposed to work, but it breaks when
politicians can be _adjusted_ , that is, bought.

------
groggles
Given that the author is Marco (and the article is on HN _because_ it is from
Marco Arment), I wonder what his boycott position is regarding Apple? Apple
has a long history of supporting draconian IP policies, and has a business
model built around controlling what you can do with what you bought.
Financially Apple absolutely dwarfs the combined revenue of all of the MPAA
realm.

I don't mean to distract the conversation or hate on Apple, but it's a very
pertinent question -- Marco and friends defend Apple's right to control their
devices and their content, but are up in arms about media companies doing the
same? Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your
freedoms while another doesn't?

(*- I will happily provide numerous citations of both Marco defending Apple
draconian policies, and Apple supporting jackboot government-backed IP
protections)

~~~
Anechoic
_Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms
while another doesn't?_

If you look at the specific examples Marco spelled out (" region locks and
unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use.") those
are restrictions that benefit only the studios and inconvenience the customer.
The iOS restrictions Apple propagates benefit Apple, but for many customers
(not HN types) they are beneficial.

It's a fine line, and Apple has had their share of jackboot actions but it can
be argued that it's not exactly the same. As for Apple defending Apple
policies, I'd bet most of those examples demonstrate the benefit to consumers.
(and has he defended the really egregious Apple missteps, like the security
officer pretending to be a police officer?)

~~~
kapitalx
Your comparison is invalid. Apple's bootloader locks are a better comparison
(Not referring to SIM lock which is provider mandated). Or the fact that you
can't change batteries on your devices? Seems to me the purpose behind that is
for you to change your device when the battery can't hold a good enough charge
instead of just changing the batteries! How does that benefit the consumer?

HTC removes bootloader locks:
[http://www.pcworld.com/article/228823/htc_ends_locked_bootlo...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/228823/htc_ends_locked_bootloader_policy.html)

~~~
eurleif
I believe Apple's stated reason for the battery thing is that the mechanism
for making a battery removable takes up a lot of space, and by getting rid of
it, they can make the actual battery bigger.

~~~
api
That is true, and you _can_ replace the battery. Doing so voids your warranty,
but by the time your Li-Polymer battery no longer holds a charge your laptop
will be out of warranty anyway, even with AppleCare. All you need is a
screwdriver.

But Apple does support a lot of draconian IP policy. I think they're in need
of a whipping over this.

------
ramanujan
Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually
ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of
direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR,
newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on
particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election.

Because advertising can't happen, but articles can, newspaper coverage under
CFR amounts to a (huge) in-kind contribution in the form of PR. And especially
when it comes to the MPAA, many of its member companies own media outlets in
addition to movie studios.

Rupert Murdoch, for example, put the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to work
in promoting SOPA/PIPA as that furthers the interests of 20th Century Fox.

So because no conceivable campaign finance regulation is going to muzzle the
Wall Street Journal or the New York Times during an election, we may have to
look elsewhere to check the MPAA's power. I think it's going to have to be
something like a souped up version of Xtranormal, which makes production of
high quality movies just as easy as distribution of said movies.

This isn't that unrealistic. Blogger made production and international
distribution of high quality opinion possible with a few keystrokes, which led
in part to the ongoing revenue collapse in print media. Video and audio are
obviously much more complex on a frame-by-frame basis than text, but I have to
believe that authoring tools can get far better than where they are. Make them
web based, build in all kinds of samples and templates akin to blogger
templates, use some of the new HTML5 toys to make authoring easier and easier.

Most of the results will be terrible, but most blogs are terrible. As long as
enough high quality open access audio/video content is produced, the MPAA/RIAA
will start to face the same financial fate as print media. Producing a
technically and ethically superior product will always be more effective in
the long run than a boycott.

~~~
cookiecaper
I actually think that the new unidirectional media monopoly that has emerged
as TV and radio have become dominant is a large contributor to today's biggest
problems in social thought. Before radio, local newspapers ruled and while
they certainly do not accept input, it is easy to launch a competing paper;
while presses weren't cheap necessarily, they were obtainable to men with
reasonable means, and such men can be found on almost every side of an issue.
It was common in the 1800s for a retaliatory newsletter or paper to publish
and get roughly common circulation with the item whose claims it sought to
address. Thus, people received both sides of an issue, and with some legwork
could create a response and receive a more or less equivalent initial
readership.

That changed immensely as we entered the radio age, where _extremely_
expensive equipment was required to broadcast and there was some competition
for a limited spectrum of airwaves. No longer could one semi-wealthy backer
get a viewpoint published; it now took some very serious capital and/or
investment only available by forming large amalgamations of wealthy people (or
having a SERIOUSLY large backer on par with Rockefeller or other barons), and
even if you got that together, you had to file requests for airspace which the
government does exactly distribute loosely or quickly. The problem was
exacerbated even further as television took over and expensive cameras,
lights, and other equipment became necessary to produce a piece with
equivalent credibility.

The internet has restored the equivalence and access of publication that
existed in the days of paper and taken it further than it ever existed before;
now there is almost no barrier to entry whatsoever to publish something across
the whole world. Naturally, the corporations and interests that thrived with
an exclusive voice among the people are beginning to wane and they are going
down kicking and screaming. We will see what is ultimately required to root
them out entirely.

Just think what would have become of the revolution if Thomas Paine's _Common
Sense_ went unread because everyone was too busy watching TV broadcasted by
what were indeed 4 separate entities, but entities all friendly to the Crown
which had already allotted them privileges and protection, and entities which
were in identical businesses and therefore shared the same legal interests.

I think we have been thoroughly manipulated the last 70-100 years or so and I
believe that we are continually reaping the consequences of that manipulation.
Thank God for the internet and the freedom to publish which it restored, and
which makes it among the most important structures in the world today.

~~~
pnathan
There's also the flip side: when everyone can say something, they do, and we
get a _ton_ of cat pictures and other... less intellectually stimulating
material. Or more pungently: Opinions are like ----, everyone's got one, and
they don't always smell good.

There's some level of value in having some barrier to competition, it
discourages the apathetic and very casual participant and encourages a higher
signal:noise ratio in the discussion discussion.

Well, at least in my opinion. :)

~~~
rhizome
Way back in the 90s, a friend observed, "the problem with asking everybody
what they think of something is that they'll tell you."

------
nostromo
Campaign finance reform is not a panacea. I notice that it's popular to blame
money in politics for everything. Don't like a bill? Any bill? Obviously
corrupt politicians are bought and paid for! Why else would they vote for such
junk, right?

Wrong. SOPA and PIPA to a congressperson and to a large number of ordinary
people make sense. The internet seems like a lawless place. To lawmakers, this
is infuriating. People in government, left and right, believe in government
solutions to most problems. Otherwise why would they work in government? As in
most professions, there is a strong bias for action. Action feels like
progress, even when the cure is worse than the disease.

Even if you got every dollar out of politics you will always see this pattern:
lawmakers have one tool, instead of a hammer it's legislation, and all the
world looks like a nail.

~~~
ypcx
That is a flawed reasoning. Campaign donations and revolving doors are the
plague of democracy. Politicians are here to work for us and to listen to us -
they are supposed to be our servants, with all due dignity and respect.

Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end.
This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can
make the politics transparent, the democracy direct, and the system work for
us. And so will we.

~~~
nostromo
This week a very powerful interest group killed SOPA and PIPA and HN cheered.

"Special interest groups" seem to always be defined as "any interest other
than my own."

Politicians like the term because some people hear it and think "bankers"
while other people hear it and think "gays and tree huggers."

~~~
mikeknoop
Your point is intriguing (addressing only your first two lines). I would say
that special interest groups are not defined by how broadly the general
population agrees their opinion (therefore, both entertainment conglomerate
and internet conglomerate would count). Special interest groups have
stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed
positions, etc.

On the other hand, this week, you had a special interest group achieving its
goal by overwhelming support (more representative of a democracy). When
someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because
typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous
methods.

~~~
anamax
> Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by
> lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc.

You mean like AARP?

> When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because
> typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous
> methods.

Some supporting evidence would be nice.

Here's a question - which side of the obamacare debate was "special
interests"?

------
narrator
As I suggested in an earlier thread, why is noone starting a copyright
liberalization campaign? If there was a strong political coalition to limit
the duration of copyright to 25 years, to limit the use of overly broad
patents, etc. it would provide a counteracting force that would force the
copyright holders to compromise "in the middle". Instead we are doing boycotts
and strongly worded letters, which while helpful, does not really do enough to
stop them from steamrolling along with their agenda.

~~~
jerf
Everyone would diffusely benefit from copyright liberalization, but it isn't
the top priority for anyone.

A few people (in relative terms) greatly benefit from copyright extension, and
it is their top priority.

I'm not sure there's a form of government that avoids this problem, but
representative republic certainly isn't one of them.

~~~
narrator
Maybe this was the reason the Pirate Party of Germany and Sweden were formed.
Someone had to make it their top issue.

------
TomOfTTB
I think he makes a valid point but then gets lost in emotionalism.

Here’s the thing. They don’t hate you. The people who work at the companies
that support the MPAA absolutely don’t hate you. They simply like themselves
and like the money they’re getting now. If anything they’re afraid of you
because they think you want to eliminate the way they make a living.

The problem is people on the other side don’t agree on what they want. Some
want media to be free, some want studios to die and artists and directors to
find ways to get paid directly and some just want laws that aren’t as
draconian as SOPA.

So to the labels and the studios people like Mr. Arment are terrorizing them.
Threatening to take their livelihood away while offering no alternative
system. That’s why not supporting member companies won’t work. Because it just
reinforces their fears.

What technology companies and people who are passionate about technology
really need to do is suggest an alternate solution. The world works in
opposites. Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, and so on. The only way
to deal with the labels is to create another side and coalesce around a common
ideology. One that still allows the system that currently creates media to
work but which allows people control over their media.

Because the one thing Mr. Arment is absolutely right about is this: You
haven’t won anything as of now. In fact, what you have done is sent a clear
message that laws like SOPA need to be done under the radar from now on and
that’s a step backwards not forwards.

~~~
ghshephard
Actually, I've thought about this, and I'm pretty sure the MPAA Hates their
customers, and, given a choice, if they could get their money without having
to deal with customers, would prefer to do so.

I'm not saying the actors, and the grips, and the makeup people, Hate me
_personally_ - but the commercial organizations they represent, as a
collective, hate the fact that I'm an active viewer and consumer of their end
product.

Because active viewing/consuming means I want do do things like, well, _view_
the product. And that all sorts of uncomfortable ramifications in that I don't
want to dedicate a not-insignificant portion of my time being fed their "BIG
RED SCREEN OF ANTI-COPYRIGHT-THEFT-PROPOGANDA" (Btw, I make it a point, every
time I am forced to see one of those screens, to go torrent a movie - seeding
for at least a day. It's actually the _only_ time I typically do torrent
movies - the fact that they control my DVD player just annoys the crap out of
me)

They Hate me because I want to watch a movie released in brazil, that everyone
is talking about, in the United States.

They Hate me because I want to watch the movie I just purchased, on my iPad.
Not the brick of electronics that happens to be sitting in my living room that
I haven't watched a movie on in two+ years.

Basically, the MPAA, and the commercial organizations they represent, Hate me,
because instead of just sending them $50-$100 / month as a passive consumer,
I'm an active consumer that loves the material they create - and that's an
annoyance, and a difference from what they used to work with 50 years ago.

And they Hate change.

~~~
badclient
_and, given a choice, if they could get their money without having to deal
with customers, would prefer to do so_

So would I. I'd love to make free money too if I could.

------
Anechoic
_it would be more productive to significantly reduce or eliminate our support
of the MPAA member companies starting today_

The problem is that any reduction in income to the studios would be spun as
"fallout from pirates stealing our IP."

Attacking campaign finance is the way to go.

edit: spelling

~~~
CWuestefeld
Attacking campaign finance is _not_ the way to go, because (a) it can't work,
and (b) it's shooting ourselves in the foot by constraining our own right to
speak.

Consider, all of you that moan about _Citizens United_ : if it's wrong for a
corporation to support a political position, then why are your cheering about
what Wikipedia, reddit, Google, etc., have done to support the opposition to
SOPA/PIPA?

And there's no way to stop monetary influence on politics. Even in the most
draconian case, where all private funding to candidates was banned, with money
coming from public coffers, there are countless backdoors. A CEO hoping for
special treatment mind just mention something that turns out to make the
politician a pile of money in stock trading, for example.

~~~
Anechoic
By "campaign finance" I'm referring to direct contributions to candidates (and
promises of cushy jobs upon retirement).

You're absolutely correct that corporations/unions/organizations can and
should be able to support positions, but that doesn't have to be a direct
benefit to a candidate in that way that campaign contributions are.

~~~
te_platt
I don't think you can stop money affecting politics any more than you can stop
piracy, or stop people from taking harmful drugs, or stop people from saying
stupid things, or a lot of other things. In those cases I think the costs of
stopping them outweigh the benefits. I just don't see any other way than
constant vigilance.

------
jjguy
Technology's favorite lawyer, Lawrence Lessig, has a new book out advocating
for campaign finance reform. Like most things from Lessig, his arguments are
well-considered, balanced and thought-provoking.

He includes a quote I found particularly compelling, especially in the light
of Marco's link between 'the next SOPA' and campaign finance reform: _For
every one striking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root._
\- Thoreau. Marco wants us to strike the root.

Book: [http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-
Congress/...](http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-
Congress/dp/0446576433)

NYTimes review: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-
campai...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campaign-
finance-reform-book-review.html?pagewanted=all)

------
jiggy2011
I don't quite understand.

Are people suggesting that congress considers legislation primarily based on
campaign contributions and that this is the same for both main parties?

So they will only go against legislation proposed by lobbyists if they feel
the votes they would lose would outweigh the benefit of those contributions to
their next campaign?

If that is the case then I'm sorry to say but your entire government system is
not fit for purpose.

If that is not the case then you should be able to beat these bills with good
reasoning and debate alone.

~~~
api
It is the case. The U.S. congress basically runs on payola. You can buy any
bill you want.

~~~
jiggy2011
If that is true then I'm amazed that a credible 3rd party has not yet surfaced
that vowed to reform politics.

Assuming even a half competent set of politicians they would be able to do an
objectively better job since they would consider things on merits rather than
contributions.

Why do you need so much money to run a campaign anyway? Surely you could get
the word out online and take donations from the public.

Of course you would really need 2 parties so people could express their left
or right wing beliefs.

~~~
TheSOB88
I don't understand your points at all - and your last sentence sounds ironic.
Should I be taking you at face value?

Anyways, your 3rd party situation has one pitfall: _how_ would it get into
power? The 2 party system's devisors have us beat; nobody believes an
independent can even get elected. There's an enormous barrier to entry.

~~~
jiggy2011
No not intended to be ironic, just badly worded.

What I meant was that I am surprised how important campaign contributions are
in an age where it is fairly cheap to get your message across online and get
people talking.

After all the London riots were an example (albeit not a pleasant one) of how
social networking etc can very quickly get people to take action.

Hopefully you could get enough contributions from private citizens and small
business to run an effective campaign.

Regards the 2 parties point. It would be difficult to create a third party
that would appeal to both liberals and conservatives so in reality you might
need a 4th party also.

I assume your suggesting that people wouldn't vote for a 3rd party because the
media would tell everyone that they were unelectable and a wasted vote?

Unfortunately I don't really have an answer for that question, the only way
around it would be to hammer home just how bad the current system really is.

~~~
TheSOB88
It's not that the media "tells" you that; though they do. But that's just a
reflection of the current state of mind of the populace. People "know" this
"fact", that a 3rd partier basically has no chance. I mean, look at Ron Paul.
He's completely different from the normal Republican; by all rights he should
have been in a separate party. But he wouldn't have gone very far with that.
He had to stick with the big party to see it through. The problem is that
Republicans and Democrats just have too much power. They have critical mass,
and nobody else does.

------
jacoblyles
The focus on campaign finance reform is wrong-headed and risks fracturing the
internet freedom coalition.

America has a strong tradition of individual rights and liberties, stronger
than anywhere else in the world. This is especially true regarding the rights
of free speech and the free distribution of information. It is possible to
build on these principles to create a platform that appeals to a large swathe
of the American electorate, an “Electronic Bill of Rights”.

We cannot taint this with other pet causes on the right or left. I am looking
for allies right now to help push for pro-freedom legislation that will push
the middle in our direction. I’ve explicitly written off working with freedom
advocates that are too heavily invested in other high-profile political
stances with a partisan lean.

For this to succeed, we need to reach both the Tea Party and the OWS crowd
while not alienating anybody. The good news is that the mainstream is with us.
President Obama and all four contenders for the Republican Presidential
nomination oppose SOPA. Let’s take this momentum and use it to erect lasting
bulwarks to protect internet liberty.

Let’s pass something that we can all agree on. Let’s not get bogged down
arguing with each other over campaign reform, or other peripheral issues.

------
lux
> But what will happen when the MPAA buys the next SOPA? We can’t protest
> every similar bill with the same force. Eventually, our audiences will tire
> of calling their senators for whatever we’re asking them to protest this
> time.

Isn't this the crux of the problem with the current democratic systems though?
If you never communicate with your political representatives, how do they know
what you as a voter want? Part of what makes a democracy work is that
connection between voters and politicians, but it has to come from us. If
enough of us vocalize our concerns, they'll be heard. Politicians want to keep
their jobs, and they need votes to do so.

Sure it's not perfect (nothing is), and lobbyists easily manipulate the system
on behalf of groups like the MPAA, but it's a basic thing that few people
actually do to uphold their part of the bargain. That's why the system can
continually be eroded with the assurance that even though SOPA/PIPA failed
this time, some mutated version will slip by eventually.

------
AdamFernandez
A solution I don't see being discussed much is MPAA and RIAA disruption. This
is occurring on some platforms like YouTube, iTunes, and Spotify. If artists
no longer need to use them as a middleman, they will cease to have money and
power. Startups that disrupt these two, and are more profitable for artists,
could wipe out this whole issue.

~~~
jiggy2011
afaik RIAA member labels are still making money from spotify and iTunes.

Taking the youtube example though, I suppose legislation like SOPA could wipe
them out and neuter them enough.

~~~
AdamFernandez
I agree they are making money from these platforms, but independent artists
are also making money and getting exposure using these platforms that would
have been impossible a decade ago. If something is created that is more
effective for artists (and possibly gives them a bigger cut..see Louis C.K.),
this would be quite effective.

~~~
jiggy2011
The only piece of the puzzle missing here is how would you finance the
creation to begin with? I know a lot of the equipment has become cheaper but
it's still expensive for an 18 year old kid to put in his garage. Not to
mention the diverse skillset you would need to produce a record or movie.

The record company being able to dangle an advance (not to mention the
promotion and contacts they can hook them up with) seems a pretty good carrot
to dangle and people like Louis C.K have probably made enough money to begin
with to finance themselves.

I also get a feeling from musicians that I have talked to that your not
considered a "real" band unless you are signed to a major label, although I
suppose that attitude can change over time. You almost need a VC type system
for musicians but the issue is that most creatives don't really want to think
of themselves as "businesspeople".

------
rglover
Perhaps the answer to this is to make it more difficult for politicians to
sign off on bills. Require some sort of education on the topic at hand before
making a decision. If the bill isn't understood by the representative, they
shouldn't be allowed to vote. With the current organization of our government,
this will never happen. A point that Marco touched on was that we won't be
able to rely on protesting every single bad decision that comes our way;
people will lose interest and control will eventually be back in the hands of
the government. He's right and we need to really focus on the bigger picture
of removing lobbying from congress and ensuring that those representing us
actually _can_.

~~~
pwg
Actually, it would be helpful just requiring that they at least have read the
full bill, cover to cover, every word, before voting on it. Considering that
most don't read the bills they vote on (do you really think they each read an
8,000+ page appropriations bill cover to cover?) that would go a long way
towards helping things ever so slightly.

------
RexRollman
Personally, I think we need to make it so that only registered voters can give
money to candidates, with a maximum amount set per contributor. That would
automatically disallow all direct contributions from corporations and prevent
the rich from having more influence than the poor.

(Of course, something like this would probably have to be a constitutional
amendment, and I doubt that would ever happen.)

~~~
TheSOB88
There's always a workaround - spending lots of money spread over different
people's names, for instance. Of course, you'd have to buy the mules first,
and that affects the efficiency, but cheating would still occur.

But anyways, yeah, the hard part would be actually putting this into place. I
mean, nobody in power would want this to happen. It would be bad for the
lobbyists and bad for the congressmen. No incentive there, and much incentive
to fight against it.

~~~
jedbrown
Lessig's suggestion would significantly increase the amount of money available
to politicians relative to now. The difference is that it would all come in
small dollar amounts to make politicians accountable to constituents instead
of the corporations currently financing them. More money might conceivably be
sufficient incentive for those in power to act.

------
nbashaw
I'm surprised Marco didn't mention the most empirically effective alternative
- make our own legislative investments. Where is the tech industry lobbying
firm? Are the industry leaders like Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook
pumping money into it?

Obviously this is a short term solution that ends up making the root problem -
money's influence in politics - worse. But sometimes you have to pick between
the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have a good set of laws brought about by
an unfair process than a bad set of laws brought on because we sat around
complaining about how unfair the system is.

~~~
jiggy2011
That's a dangerous game. Once you've convinced Google and Facebook to start
lobbying and they realize they like it and it is effective what happens next
time congress thinks about changing laws on say privacy?

------
bambax
> _we’re not addressing the real problem: the MPAA’s buying power in Congress.
> This is a campaign finance problem._

This is delusional at best. I'm from France, where campaigns are paid for by
public money.

France: the country that brought you Hadopi and where SOPA-like laws have been
in place for a long time.

This has nothing to do with campaign finance.

~~~
TheCowboy
What do you think is the source of the problem in France?

Maybe the way money influences politics is more so a problem here. I do think
it is a stretch to say it is completely irrelevant, because it seems clear
that it isn't.

~~~
bambax
You're right. To clarify, in the US, the problem is partly related to campaign
finance, yes, because this vehicle is available to lobbyists to influence
politicians.

But my point is, if you remove this vehicle the problem doesn't go away, it
just takes another form.

And in fact I think it's good that it takes the form of campaign finance,
because at least it's visible: you can see who gives how much money to which
man / party / cause.

And anyway, politicians don't care about "freedom"; they care about big
companies, because they have dinner with CEOs; they care about "jobs" because
they think that's what matters to their constituents. Solving campaign finance
wouldn't change any of that.

------
mlapida
My thoughts exactly. While cutting out watching movies on Netfilx and TV is
going to be difficult, I most definitely wont be purchasing any movies on
iTunes, at Best Buy or going to a theater to watch them. If the tech community
could band together to boycott these three huge money makers for the MPAA, we
might see better results.

~~~
jiggy2011
To be honest it wouldn't make much difference , tech community is a small % of
the population and it's members probably commit a much higher than average
rate of piracy anyway.

It would probably be more effective to stand outside a cinema waving banners.

------
r00fus
A boycott is only successful if you know who owns what. Short of selling my
HDTV (which would be way popular with my family), I don't see how I can avoid
MPAA content.

~~~
umjames
You don't have to sell the TV, just don't watch movies on it.

The harder part, is getting non-tech people to join your boycott. Good luck
trying to tell people not to see the new Batman movie when it comes out.

What would be good to know is if actors, directors, and other movie makers
support the MPAA's actions. With the RIAA, you could sense that musicians
often were at odds with the record companies that signed them. Is that the
case with movies? Are there movie studios that don't support things like SOPA
and PIPA? Maybe we'd have something if those people (if they exist) spoke out
publicly against the MPAA.

~~~
chaz
I think you'll have to get rid of the TV. SOPA supporters include CBS, NBC,
ABC, FOX, Viacom, ESPN, NFL, NBA, and the MLB. Also, the Directors Guild of
America (DGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) are supporters. The Writers Guild
of America (WGA) does not support SOPA, however.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_offi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_official_stances_on_the_Stop_Online_Piracy_Act)
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/17373717070/writer...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/17373717070/writers-
guild-realizing-that-sopa-goes-too-far-union-support-censoring-internet-
begins-to-crack.shtml)

------
jobeirne
There will always exist groups of people who want to abrogate the rights of
the average person for the benefit of a select class. What makes people think
this struggle is unique to the MPAA or the RIAA or even media on the internet?

It's time to think about how we can restructure our government to avoid this
_class_ of problems, not just the next SOPA. In the words of Eric S. Raymond,

"For freedom to flourish, the Internet must be kept free of government
control. The Internet needs to be kept free of corporate control, too. But, as
we have seen with the DMCA, corporations that want to control the net have to
do so by buying bad laws from the government — they can't jail or kill you
themselves. Thus, the most important front in the battle is still heading off
bad laws and regulations."

------
aptimpropriety
"It's not a waiting game, it's a game of poker. Lamar Smith has a royal flush
and few people know it.

SOPA may pass. It may not. He doesn't care, and it doesn't matter. The MPAA
and RIAA started working on their legislative strategy to pass a new anti-
piracy bill in late 2010. SOPA was designed to raise the noise. Everyone is
playing right into the entertainment industries hand. The lobbyists are
laughing manically at the ignorance of the mob. Even Wikipedia and reddit have
played into it."

[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_back_it_has_not_been_shelved_and_its/c3i9fqe)

~~~
untog
It irritates me that posts like that get so many upvotes on Reddit when they
provide absolutely no evidence for what they say.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's incorrect, but it is speculation
stated as fact.

------
paul9290
It's a nice thought, but you have to get your cousin, third cousin, your
parents, your grandparents and etc to boycott Hollywood too.

How do you accomplish this when media is engrained in our daily lives &
culture?

~~~
oscardelben
You can get started without waiting for everyone else, and when they'll ask
you why you act that way you'll tell them. We can't kill that industry in one
week but you and I can start today and more people will join later. That's
what's happened in the last years.

~~~
thebigshane
There's a backlash here though.

I've actually stopped telling people I don't watch TV because there is now a
"holier than thou" aura around it. I think most people hate how much they like
TV, but if you mention how you just stopped TV all together, they think you
are just rubbing it in, like you're better than them. Like the guy who always
talks about he was just "hitting the gym". No one like that guy either.

Any suggestions?

~~~
laglad
This is very true for any lifestyle decision that seems to suggest a more
productive way of living to someone else. We naturally feel the need to have
our lifestyle habits justified as the right choice. Any threat to that, is a
threat to our egos.

A better strategy would be to point out the progress (even if false) that
someone is making in living a better life (less TV for example). If you can
successfully plant that identity seed in their head, they will feel empowered
to continue to cut back. The ego is a funny construct.

------
nova
We can argue all we want about whether copyright is good or not, but that is
the wrong question. The right question is if (enforced) copyright is
compatible with the existence of a free internet.

IMHO, it is not. Current copyright law means restrictions on the copy of data.
A free internet means freedom to interchange data.

So either we lose the free net, or we push for a deep reform of IP laws,
something like that the law should only restrict for-profit infringement.

------
bh42222
A LOT of people have fought very hard for campaign finance reform over the
past 20 years I can remember. The result is more money in politics than ever.

Supporting campaign finance reform will do nothing. We tried that over
decades, the supreme court shot it down.

You have two options:

1\. Constitutional reform.

Make it specifically distinguish campaign finance from free speech. No plain
law will ever stand with the constitution as it is today.

2\. Greatly increase the number of representatives.

This may be a lot easier as it is just a plain law. At some point we decided
too many members of the house would be too chaotic. So we hugely raised the
ratio of people to representatives.

This favors the lobbying power of interest groups.

While individuals still have a lot of influence if they write or in person
visit their representative, it is universally accepted that the fewer people
are in your district the more influence each individual has. And the opposite
is also true. This is why, unlike the senate, the house is supposed to be _the
people's_ house.

If you dramatically raise the total number of representative you bring power
closer to the people.

Will this also result in grid lock? Yes! Is that still totally worth it? YES!

------
asdfasdghasdf
"Their bills have had mixed success and usually die before being brought to a
vote, but SOPA and PIPA came frighteningly close to becoming law. The
internet-wide protest this week seems to have stalled their progress and
probably killed them for now."

Frighteningly close! One of them was almost scheduled for debate in the
Senate! The other almost had a second round of markup in committee scheduled!

The reaction to SOPA and PIPA was way overblown. Like the article says, this
sort of thing happens all the time, and usually fizzles out. While this bill
did have more co-sponsors than most, indicating support, it still only made it
to the first verse of Schoolhouse Rock.

Somehow it caught on as an Internet meme, though, and got inordinate
attention. It was definitely for the best, though.

------
DanielBMarkham
_We can attack this by aggressively supporting campaign finance reform to
reduce the role of big money in U.S. policy_

Blaming money for problems in politics is just like focusing on money when
running a business -- you're looking in the wrong spot.

Money is a _result_ of something, not a cause. There's a lot of money in
politics as a result of concentrating so much political power in one place.
Just like in a business where the money represents value exchanged, in
politics the money represents influece -- big, powerful people in groups that
want to be heard. Starting off another holy crusade along the lines of
prohibition simply because you've managed to distill your problems into one
word isn't going to help anything.

~~~
davepeck
I'd suggest reading Lawrence Lessig's new book, "Republic, Lost". It is a
deep, sober-minded inspection of the issue of campaign finance. You may arrive
at the other end feeling differently than you do now. (It certainly changed my
perspective.)

------
nextparadigms
Here it is, the _next_ SOPA, made by no other than Lamar Smith - PCIP Act
(Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act), or H.R.1981 - a bill
_much_ more dangerous than SOPA 1.0, and very hard to attack because of its
name and "intent":

[http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-
bill-...](http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-could-
kill-internet.aspx)

[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_back_it_has_not_been_shelved_and_its/c3i9fqe)

------
marcamillion
Here is the problem with this solution...the sacrifice is too large, from too
many people. If I and the entire HN crowd (say 1,500,000 people?) decide not
to watch any more movies - while that may depress their earnings a bit...I
would think the net effect would be about a 20% reduction in earnings. The
vast majority of HNers probably don't buy every single movie they watch.

So, the real solution needs to be one that is incremental and can be adopted
more mainstream. I don't know what it is, but I don't see 'stop watching all
movies' as a realistic goal.

------
skrebbel
Genuine interest: Marco calls this a 'campaign finance problem', but isn't
politicians submitting bills for money usually called 'corruption'? Why aren't
the Americans _really mad_ about it?

------
mrdingle
The best part about stopping to support companies that support the MPAA and
RIAA is that they are going to say they are loosing revenue through piracy and
not direct consumer withdrawal.

------
joejohnson
This is why we need to find a technological solution that will make future
legislation infeasible or impossible. We need a decentralized DNS and total
encryption of the internet.

~~~
jiggy2011
I don't see how encryption would help here, it's only really useful as a way
to prevent some forms of snooping, it couldn't really be used to get around a
block.

If DNS was decentralized they would just do the blocking on an IP address
level.

------
MarkTraceur
Also, rather than supporting the MPAA/RIAA industry, try checking out the
Blender Foundation, Jamendo, and similar sites that stream or support _free_
content that is licensed under Creative Commons licenses.

And of course, since software is as big an issue as creative content, it
should be said that the FSF is having a donation drive currently:
<https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom>

------
vectorpush
I think campaign finance reform is a good thing in theory, but in practice I
feel confident that big money would still find its way into the pockets of our
lawmakers with relative ease. In the end, no amount of money can save an
elected official if their constituents are determined to see that official
ousted. We can't legislate our way out of corruption, the price of freedom is
eternal vigilance.

------
nextparadigms
Another interesting twist (not surprised at all, though). MPAA lied about the
number of people being employed by the entertainment industry:

[http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sopa_busted.g...](http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sopa_busted.gif)

The tech industry employs 10 times as many. I'm glad their lies are finally
debunked. We need to debunk their "lost revenue" numbers, too.

------
vijayr
One good thing that did come out of this - I can't remember people protesting
so much, in a united way online, against any issue. Last year it was against
oppressive regimes, this year it is against stupid bills. People _are_ using
the internet to protest, that is a good thing. Right now, it is more quantity
than quality - hopefully that'll change too.

------
the_paul
A good way to support said finance reform is to follow Lessig's recommendation
([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/on-the-
signifi...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/on-the-significance-
of-th_b_831166.html)) and help out Buddy Roemer's campaign.

------
peq
The real problem is, that the US has no real democracy. When the government
did something similar to SOPA in Germany, the "Piraten Partei" got more votes
and the bigger parties rethought their plans because of this. But small
parties do not have a chance in the US system.

------
Iv
We finally have the initiative. These last years we just reacted to bad laws
trying to prevent or at least weaken them. Now we have finally a voice.

Let's make this victory a durable one and let's propose a constitutional
amendment so that such laws can never ever be brought back again.

------
rikurrr
Financial reform? Use bitcoin. Ask your favorite artists to accept bitcoin
purchases or donations.

------
jgeerts
hatefully how they ignore such a huge market potential, renting movies online
and streaming them... that would be so great and would generate huge profits.
But yet they don't and just expect their customers to go to the store and buy
a DVD so we can watch it one time and then leave it in our closets for the
rest of our lives? Or they want us to drive 20 mins to a rental store each
day? Stop ignoring the market potential, try to grow, try to change, try to
generate more profit. They don't evolve, but their users do and they don't
like it. They are too stupid and old fashioned to see that the way media is
spread just changed, all they need is a different approach to their end users.

------
almutasim
There should be a constitutional amendment protecting the Internet and its
underlying structure. Maybe not today, maybe it's premature, but one day soon
this will seem appropriate and needed. It would put the Judicial branch on our
side.

------
dlokshin
You can think about this as a campaign finance problem or as a federal
politicians have too much power problem. You don't have campaign finance as a
problem if lobbying doesn't do these companies any good.

------
jczhang
You know what Ron Paul would say about this... It's not campaign finance
reform that's needed, its decreasing the power of the gov't to have so much
power. That's the root cause, not the money.

------
antrover
"Eventually, we will lose."

That's such a pessimistic statement. With that attitude, some SOPA-like Bill
will pass. As an example, if MLK had that attitude, the whole Civil Rights
movement would've failed.

------
bytenotes
Terms limits should help significantly. It would consume a great deal of
energy and money from special interests to corrupt ever renewing congress.

------
code_duck
I'm pleased to say I despise Hollywood movies and give these studios no money
whatsoever. If only the public developed good sense and taste.

------
daintynews
I think it would be good if only registered voters can give campaign money to
candidates. If they want to call it donations, then so be it. BUT only
registered voters can give donations as well.

