And Darrell Issa did a phenomenal job calling into question the need for the legislation because of the function of the ITC & usefulness of administrative law solutions already in place.
Wow, Dennis Ross (R-FL) apparently doesn't understand that free speech protections apply to the GOVERNMENT, not to business. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." So yes, when Google takes down a site, it's not unconstitutional. When the government does it, in some instances, that is unconstitutional.
Lofgren came on like a breath of fresh air. Not only did she actually seem INFORMED on the matter, but she did well to reveal that the opposition to this bill is not comprised of greedy tech companies who fear they would lose business, but all walks of Americans who are afraid that this would negatively impact our lives and our economy.
*edits for clarity
That's refreshing; I'm not always a fan of this guy's work, but I fully agree that this is unnecessary regulation intended to violate the rights of individuals to boost the pockets of the corporate state.
"We disagree." - big content shill
Chair: "If you believe these concerns are unfounded, please submit written responses to that specific question explaining why you believe that."..."I'm very concerned that these [DNSSec] experts are not part of this hearing!"
I just don't think "it breaks DNSSEC" is the most compelling or intellectually honest argument. I think the honest argument is, "because we don't think any one authority will be an adequate steward of the Internet".[/quote]
I think that point is just as salient for SOPA as it is for PROTECT-IP. Don't setup that argument for them to knock down. Keep the focus on holding the copyright infringers accountable, not the service providers in-between.
Consider the conflict of interest that exists when lawyers are making our laws. In this case if this bill passes there will be more laws and legal complexity and consequently more work to go around for everyone on the panel and all their previous and current firms and law school mates.
It's like asking a team of developers to get together and vote on whether a problem is best solved by writing more code or doing nothing.
Who would you ask whether code needs to be written, then? The lawyers who aren’t dealing in law? Housewives? Veterinarians?
It’s the same thing with lobbyists—they end up getting hired by government because they are experts in what they are talking about. You’re going to be very hard-pressed to find an expert that doesn’t have some vested interest somewhere in what they’re talking about.
Consider the conflict of interest that exists…
A common tactic I see when people argue about politics is that because someone could be doing something corrupt then it means that they then therefore are doing it. I could certainly go walk outside and push someone in front of a bus right now, but assuming I’m a murderer just because I could is not a good assumption. Conflicts of interest certainly raise the possibility of wrongdoing and should be scrutinized, but the simple existence of a conflict of interest is not proof of wrongdoing; for that you need not aspersions but, well, proof.
I am staunchly against SOPA being enacted without industry input, and I think it’s misguided to try to prop up dying content businesses that aren’t innovating, but spouting conspiracy theories about the politicians passing it for their own benefit isn’t going to help.
Of course, you might be wondering why decent legal services still cost upwards of $300/hour, and my answer to that would be that a lawyer who charges $50 an hour has a hard time getting taken seriously. I've seen people come into internet forums asking the most asinine questions before going on to explain that they didn't trust the answers they received from their public defender, because he works for free and therefore he must not be any good.
edit: I think the above might be the longest grammatically correct run-on sentence I've ever written.
Oh god: "Why not hire some whiz kids?"
What a goddamned fool.
"We have the brainpower in this country [to design a machine to distinguish copyrighted works from non-copyrighted works]."
Actually, no, we don't. Fair use is a thing, holmes.
Leaving aside the question of whether such a thing could exist ("return true" works pretty well for a first approximation, but presumably the senator meant "copyrighted and used without permission"), anyone with the brainpower to do that hopefully has the brainpower not to.
We do? As a non-technical senator, you can make that engineering claim with confidence?
The woman from Google was brilliantly concise, and her explanations made absolutely perfect sense. They were countered with "horse is out of the barn" type popularisms, volkish garbage from ignorant senators to their totally illiterate constituency.
So much for the last pocket of growth in the American economy; it's gonna be shut down, destroyed. Smarties need to think countermeasures, and let these idiots root around in their own shite for a few years learning that they shouldn't deign to dictate what their betters have the "brainpower" to solve if they themselves can't figure out how.
You'll witness the madness play out when the legislators, having given the plebes their "voice", ignore every single one of them and proceed with graduating the bill to a full vote. Which will likely pass.
Pass the House of Representatives. Then a similar bill has to pass in the Senate, which, because of filibuster rules, now effectively requires 60 votes to pass anything significant rather than a simple majority of 51 votes. Once it's passed in both the House and the Senate, the two sides have to reconcile the differences into one bill that both houses then have to pass again. That final bill then has to be signed by the President to become law.
All of this has to happen in an election year, which always makes it harder to pass significant legislation.
There are still lots of places for the bill to die, or at least be weakened significantly, and there's still plenty of time for voters to take action to make their voices heard.
But yes, it does mean wasting a lot of money on lawyers to fight a very bad law which Google could instead be using to build computer-driven cars, improve machine translation, and to create more high-paying jobs.
Instead, we're getting the broken window version where they're forced to create more highly-paid lawyers, instead.
"We have harshly criticized governments whose service providers monitor and censor the actions of their users. [...] How would this legislation affect our diplomacy with nations like Iran, for example?"
"When there are realtime events, it's important that content services allow for infrastructure to support realtime public response to those events."
"This bill hurts both large and small content intermediaries severely, but in different ways."
"We've seen Libyan officials trying to take rivals' YouTube channels out of their national internet stream."
"The Justice Department has new responsibilities under SOPA while at the same time we've been talking about downsizing government. Are we creating an unmeetable burden for U.S. Gov as well as content intermediaries?"
Preach it, sister.
"...innocent civilians and American soldiers at risk..."
Who would have thought BitTorrent was such a threat to American civilisation?
"You can search for 'free harry potter movie' and watch it for free"
"You can go type 'j edgar' into google and piracy links show up above legitimate links"
"You can watch breaking dawn online right now, and it's not even out yet"
Try them yourself as they bring them up. They're full of bullshit.
I have no idea whether there's any basis for concern, but I'm sure we have some DNSSEC experts here on HN. Comments?
The result will be chaos.
It is pushing off the "do you trust (Versign+USDoJ | greatfirewall.cn) to give you the legitimate answer to your .com query" problem. Which is the kind of problem that the Internet is good at routing around but would be bad for it to do so.
E.g., users will (at best) change to alternative DNS systems or (at worst) toss out this hierarchical authority naming concept entirely. Consider how many users simply wouldn't notice if Google started returning IP addresses or proxy names for search results. Or maybe they set up an alternate with their own naming scheme for Chrome, Android, ChromeOS, and everyone with their search bar. (Oh wait, I just Googled it and they already did that and I didn't notice http://www.infoworld.com/t/dns/google-launches-alternative-d... )
If Google does it, then Microsoft must too. And Amazon, and The Pirate Bay and so then we need a protocol for deciding which DNS system the client will use on a per-request basis, and civil-rights-disrespecting governments try to sabotage that too and round-we-go the Internet we know and love is circling the drain.
It is a vastly simpler, tactical solution to the DNS "security problem" (I'm a skeptic about the long term importance of this problem too).
Just another pay-per-install malware module?
Hard for AV to detect the settings are wrong?
The TOR .onion URL scheme is closer to what you're talking about, I think. It actually does present an alternate domain that isn't available outside of TOR.
.onion is an alternate root. There's an interesting page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root giving the history of them.
A friend was using OpenDNS for a while, until we figured out they were MitMing google.com and intercepting his queries. I wonder if they still do that.
Of course, ICANN has decided to begin selling TLDs for a $200K application fee. There goes the neighborhood.
In essence, any measure that involves changing the contents of the DNS (by filtering etc.) is indistinguishable from a man-in-the-middle attack which is what DNSSEC is trying to stop.
ORLY? We know that? Someone had better tell the market, which continues to fund (and see returns on) indie films.
Unclear whether Mr. Issa's alternative bill (yet to be seen, focused on empowering the FTC to issue injuctions) would allow for DNS-based remedies, whether the injunctions would take more traditional forms like fines/C+D/damages, etc.
For example: Pink Floyd. I hear a lot about them, but don't know if I'd like them. So I downloaded some of their popular albums for free and gave them a listen.
After recovering from the awesomeness, I've since bought two of those albums on iTunes, and yesterday 3 friends and I each dropped $78 on tickets for a concert with one of the old band members.
If I could only pay for it, which is the record company's ideal world, I would've seen the $16.99 price tag on iTunes and not taken the chance of listening to it.
The people downloading something illegally are, for the most part, not the same people who'd be paying for it.
I'm not going to say any other bands are like this, but a couple years ago I was at a Carbon Leaf concert and the lead singer said "Here's what we want everyone to do: go buy our new CD outside after the concert, then go home and burn a few copies for your friends...just don't tell our record company." Well I did as I was told and I now have several friends who have bought many of their other albums , attended a few concerts, and bought some T-shirts and whatnot all because I shared that one CD with them. I'm sure at least a few hundred other fans were gained with this method. Oh, and I was turned on to the band because my father shared with me a CD his brother burned for him.
The band has since switched to their own private label. I've noticed a few semi-big bands producing their own records lately. By the time piracy gets "stopped" (never) the record companies will have died from natural causes.
Yes, I know these services are not available in many jurisdictions and that's a shame and I believe it will change over time. Point is, the situation is getting better and the so called "need" to pirate music is increasingly gone.
These guys say that pre-release pirated movies result in a 15% decline in box office revenue "We estimate that the net effect of pre-release piracy is approximately a 15% reduction in box office sales.":
Edit: Check out the guy in the back on his iphone most likely looking at some form of "infringing content."
Don't you think people who ought to know better should be opposing this bill? If we could get Bill Gate on board, that would be great. I mean, he already have billion of dollars, why should he care about making more money?
"If I had my way I'd lock all three of ya in a room and don't come out until you agree."
"As a consumer I can't tell who's a thief and who's not a thief. What can Google offer this bill that would allow Google to sign on to this bill?"
How is "Google signing on" the key issue here? Is Google the gatekeeper to basic constitutionality in legislation now?
"Google would publicly support a "follow the money" approach."
1: The real question we should be asking is the source of the SOPA text. It was pretty clearly written by lobbyists, for their clients, and its just as clear that the committee has no idea about the contents. We should be attacking/ranting at the sponsoring companies while helping the congress people to understand through measured lobbying and public action.
2: Larry Lessig's latest book covers the process of making USA's laws extraordinarily well. Congress people are trying to do the right thing, but it's hard to believe laws are made in an unbiased manner when we look at the flow of cash supporting their elections.
3: New Zealand had a similar moment when copyright legislation was debated earlier this year, and the tech community suddenly saw how laws were made. It was a rush job, not pretty and the major parties suffered for it as they took stances which often lacked logic. We now have an election on, wand while it is not a big issue, I expect we will see a lot more support for the Green party, who were the only ones crying foul.
"Is China on your list?"
"What might be the total losses due to piracy [...] any studies done on that? Does anyone have a more comprehensive solution [than shutting down websites]?"
What does Mr. King want to hear? Bomb China and Russia and Sweden because OH NOEZ PIRACY? What. The. Fuck?
"Are you aware of state sponsored IP theft? China?"
Good god, man.
- Mr. Cohen
He says "the Internet is working just fine there".
One of these places is Turkey. A guy got arrested there for talking about a Chuck Palahniuk novel there on some sort of forum or similar.
Or could always make a #sopa on freenode.
FAIL. Genius, like digital bits, are not zero sum. This isn't digital Highlander; a kid pirating a film does not magically soak up (and away) the genius of the auteur.
Nice Highlander metaphor, btw.
Simply/simplistically put: Unplug them. We'd all be better off.
"Service providers do not have the technical means to do what this bill requires."
^^^^^^^^ more like that. Update: that was Zoe Lofgren again.
All I can see is politicians saying "this SOPA breaking the Internet is nonsense". And yet, they didn't even invite engineers there to testify for that.
he searched for some obscure song and found it free illegally but not on iTunes. if it was available then he would have bought it.
I'm a self taught programmer. If it wasn't for the internets I would be a pretty poor guy. Spolsky gave a nice answer on SO about teaching a newcomer how to program. He listed SICP, k&R and Code. I read SICP online and I downloaded a version of K&R. Both books had a fundamentally awesome impact on me and I just decided I should buy them along with Code.
All the tech books I've ever read I read online with the exception of The Definitive Guide to Action Script 5, which cost me 50$.
SICP is on sale for 80$
K&R is 50$
If I'm poor (or: a kid) I don't have 50$. Denying me the option to steal this books without harming anyone will just make me less educated.
I don't know where you are, but everywhere I've lived in the US there's at least one very cheap book on C in every used book sale or public library. Today of course, we have more information about programming and Computer Science free on the web than anyone could ever have time to read.
I do buy relatively expensive computer books today when they fit my budget, but it's a rare book that has information I couldn't find on the web.
Fair enough question. When the money is all interior to some foreign country, and doesn't touch typical payment hubs (e.g. Visa), how does "follow the money" address the problem effectively?
Well, because putting DNS in the hands of any single government or financial interest is a terrible remedy.
Google's response: "We spent a ton of time and money to create tools to allow rights holders to identify infringing content."
So are those guys still getting paid, or aren't they? Are movies still making money, or aren't they?
Good question. Piracy status quo, without some sort of crackdown, already skews the "legitimate" distribution models to those that benefit companies with Google's model (e.g. for YouTube).
If this is still a terrible idea, it's not an obviously terrible one.
Furthermore, there's a terrible burden for startups moving into certain spaces if suddenly you can't get ranked because you're not a Trusted source.
Plus, controlling search engine neutrality or listing position is not the business of the government or rightsholder. Remember, Google is a private entity.
Does that help your concerns about effects on unknowns, startups, etc? All the non-sketchy results should still be organically ranked, right?
Yes, truly, in a free market, seller policies cannot possibly influence the creation of market alternatives.
This is not looking good brothers on the otherside of the sea. What i read today is a 5to1 debate :/ and i got a horriable feeling the nervous looking girl might be the 1 against :/
Also our Supreme Court recently ruled that hyperlinks are like footnotes in a book so publishing a hyperlink to defamatory material doesn't mean you're responsible for the defamatory material (not republication). Sensible ruling. Heading in direction of internet freedom not away from it.
tl:dr, the UK is going the same way. and the core EU (once they kick out the dead weight will be forced to do the same me thinks) every country running their own internet with great big blacklists, that in turn will turn in to whitelists, and soon it will be "you can only view these pages"
It may be that everybody in that room knows the thing is not going to pass but is going through the motions of proposing to satisfy their corporate donors. It may also be that someone is proposing a batshit crazy idea like this in order to see it get shot down. Sometimes Congress seems to even pass laws with provisions that they know will be struck down in the Supreme Court.
It's just plain weird.
Compared to some other hearings, the reps asking questions seem legitimately interested in making the bill suck a lot less. Time will tell, I suppose, and it sucks that this bill made it this far, but I'd highly recommend watching the feed if you care about the outcome.
For example, your next letter to your elected representative could reference specific content of the discussion rather than rehashing something that was talked about. Nothing says "I care" like "I cared enough to sit through the same hearing you did."
That seems like a large part of the problem; they treat it as a foregone conclusion that the bill will pass, perhaps with a bit of tweaking. This bill needs to die. All bills should have the presumption of failure, with a very high bar to get them to pass, not the other way around.
[Edit] Kept trying and it ended up working
After watching this incredibly infuriating thing, I hope they pass it. I hope it passes, and the economy of the US tanks, and it eats itself. Fuck these people, and fuck everyone who voted for them.
If you're the only person in the room who has technical expertise, Submit your comments in writing.
Just look at the mess that is the patent system... even "experts" in a field or art are making huge mistakes when it comes to judging obviousness and originality. Why do people think a machine will do as well, let alone better when trying to judge legality of a piece of content?
I think what it comes down to is the content industries wanting to force technology companies to fight piracy for them. Technology companies know that trying to fight something like this (past a certain point) just leads to an arms race with huge amounts of collateral damage on either side. Media companies are throwing in the towel, they just want companies like Google to fight for them, and in doing so bear all of the responsibility and cost (while gaining zero benefit).
The stupid - it hurts.
The very concept of a technocratic government assumes people know and agree what the goals should be and fully understand the consequences. If that was the case, the current political system would "work". Instead people disagree on what the goals should be, and will change their opinion on what the goals should be if the goals the initially chose causes changes they dislike.
E.g. if you present proof that legalizing cannabis would have only positive effects, don't expect most people who are against it to change their mind, expect them to change their argument for why it should remain illegal.
Any technocratic government would necessarily need to be dictatorial and heavily oppressive - one that wasn't wouldn't stay in power for any amount of time.
I keep seeing this idea prop up - especially over on Reddit. And it scares me. I've said there that I'd be first in line to take up arms against a government like that, and I'm serious, as I'd see it as a massive threat against my freedom.
That they needed to (begrudgingly) install a technocrat at the 11th hour simply to stave off total and utter destruction of their economy (and the wider EU economy) is, in my opinion, proof enough that Technocratic governments are the way to go.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. When the majority are idiots, you have a real problem that will always lead to catastrophic results.
I see idiots as a threat against my freedom. And considering their inability to think strategically or consider long term scenarios, I think the civil war war between the intellectuals and the morons you predict would be over very quickly.
In a very, very limited sense. A government in a country with a parliamentary system is subject to support of parliament. As such, its powers are drastically limited compared to the US executive, for example, as it can be overthrown by parliament at any time. In this case they have a very narrow mandate from parliament, and can expect to be forced to resign if they don't consult with parliament very closely on everything they do.
In other words this is a show to give confidence to investors. Nothing would have stopped Berlusconi or another politician from running the government but actually take advice from economists seriously in the first place. If anything, Italy is a demonstration of why a technocracy will not be accepted longer term - it is only begrudgingly tolerated as a stage show even now because they're staring down the abyss and are hoping it will calm things down, while they could have taken advice from the exact same people at any time in the past years.
Why didn't they? Because they didn't like the answers given when they asked for advice, and the voters wouldn't have voted for them if they did follow it.
The moment things looks better, the same squabbling will continue, because the only reason there's anything resembling a truce between the parties in Italy now is that they all agree that for the moment the debt is the controlling issue, and everything up to and including this stage show is better than a default.
Also, look up the history of Italy. The Italian government changes more often than some people changes clothes, because the parliament has generally been extremely quick to replace the sitting government if it makes decisions parliament does not like. Berlusconi's government has been a massive aberration. This is not a culture that will tolerate a government that takes decisions they don't like unless they see it as absolutely impossible to avoid.
> That they needed to (begrudgingly) install a technocrat at the 11th hour simply to stave off total and utter destruction of their economy (and the wider EU economy) is, in my opinion, proof enough that Technocratic governments are the way to go.
This is a ridiculous argument. They chose to install a government lead by an economist as a temporary measure to try to fix a problem. It does not follow that this government will be given free reign - Italy has a parliamentary system, and the government can be voted down at pretty much any time, as mentioned above. Nor does it follow that this government will sit very long - in Italy that would be the exception rather than the rule for any government. Nor does it follow that this government will make good decisions if it tries to make decisions outside of the one area where it has a real mandate from parliament.
Nor does it follow that it will actually solve the problem in a way more beneficial to Italians than a government composed out of politicians. Keep in mind that this government was put in place by politicians out of desperation - the same politicians that participated in creating the mess in the first place.
If you don't trust these politicians to make the right decisions in the first place, why would you trust their decisions in installing this government?
> Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. When the majority are idiots, you have a real problem that will always lead to catastrophic results.
Yes, you will have problems, but you will have even greater problems when someone thinks they have objective measures for what is "right" despite the will of the majority. Quite a lot of despots got started this way - if you don't have popular support, either you won't have a government or you will need to start the oppression.
As much as a lot of things could be a lot better under a lot of minority governments, ultimately the only way for this to come to pass would be oppression. I'll take the government of idiots over an effective oppressive dictator any day.
> I think the civil war war between the intellectuals and the morons you predict would be over very quickly.
It would not be a civil war between intellectuals and morons, but between wannabe dictators (arguable they are the real morons) and everyone else, including most intellectuals. And yes, it probably would be over very, very quickly, as the very people who fantasize about this kind of government tend to do so because they are disgusted about the very type of politics required to gain the popular or military support required to install one.
That said, A Technocracy does not imply dictatorship. Nor does it imply despotism. These are two "aspects" of a Technocracy you've just made up on the spot to support what you believe.
All I ask is that my chancellor be a qualified and learned economist. That my minister for health be qualified in a related field such as medicine or biology. That the scientific/ethical debates in parliament (or congress) be argued between scientific experts and philosophers and economists, not by people who have never actually had a real job outside of politics, or have little to no education in the field they are responsible for. When our leaders can say sincerely "I asked God what to do", and everyone thinks that's ok, we've lost the plot. That's Tyranny.
What I want is to feel confident that the people making the decisions that govern my life know what the hell they're talking about. What I have right now, what we all have right now, are leaders who make decisions based on how much money someone is willing to pay them, what they feel in "their gut" to be right, or what some magical fucking tyrant living in the sky tells them to do.
Democracy my arse. It's a joke.
And it is complete shit. I uploaded a video of my son playing Fur Elise on the piano and got an automated noticed from Google that I had uploaded a video infringing on some company's work. Completely absurd.
When I googled the company's name, I found countless people complaining of the same thing. One guy had a video in which a siren was going off and they claimed that was copyrighted!
People have suggested that there's an anti-intellectual bias ingrained in the American psyche, but I don't think that's actually the problem. It's the assumption that someone else will do the thinking for you that's the real nasty, seedy little heart of the matter.
I really look forward to the gov't expending taxpayer dollars it doesn't have, and endless amounts of energy, chasing down ghosts and persecuting middlemen in defense of trillion-dollar interests. Because the sooner the US becomes the laughingstock of the western world, the sooner it's likely to get its house in order and gag the busybodies, wingnuts, corporate interests and degenerate senators who are creating its current policies.
In fact success is a rare and fragile confluence of many conditions that is hard to find.
Now, when told by the copyright holder that no use of some work is authorized, they can flag all copies of it that they are able to find and match it under the assumption that nothing is authorized. But you couldn't add anything if we assume that every user is lying about being authorized.
Moreover, as was demonstrated in the Viacom case, even the copyright holders get it wrong. In particular, Viacom had uploaded copies of their own works and made them appear leaked. Yet these were uploaded by Viacom itself and, thereby, authorized. They even had to go back and have them put up after taking them down by mistake. And they had to remove them from their complaint after being told of their mistakes. Twice. After doing due diligence with expensive lawyers.
Anyway, what about remixes and magazine photos and quotations longer than a paragraph?
What's the point of getting an expert opinion if you're just going to completely disregard it?
It's easier than moving to the US. :)
EDIT: I should point out the following, for those who think that there really is no need to worry. "Risk of Jail for Ordinary Users: It becomes a felony with a potential 5 year sentence to stream a copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license, even if you are a totally noncommercial user, e.g. singing a pop song on Facebook." - http://americancensorship.org A felony is a felony is a felony. Once you are guilty of one, your life changes significantly. It all comes down to which law you are willing to break. Just a couple of decades ago, murder and treason were pretty much the only serious crimes. Now, manipulate certain bits in a particular way, and it's treated as almost the same thing. Think about how much we've already lost through our passivity, and how much more we have to lose.
Step 1. At a fancy lunch spot on Rodeo Drive a lobbyist gets with someone in Hollywood, and they talk about a Hollywood dream law, e.g., shut down Internet movie sharing or some such, just to pick a hypothetical issue! Wink, wink!
Step 2. The lobbyist sells the Hollywood guy on an effort to get the dream law passed. "Sign your check, and we will get started from our M Street offices." They do get started and draft the Hollywood Dream Act.
Step 3. The lobbyist finds some Dumb-Dumb legislators on Capital Hill who are not very bright, not doing very well, and need some campaign donations, maybe some trips to Vegas, etc. and hands them copies of the Hollywood Dream Act and some campaign donations, trips to Vegas, etc. Maybe if we did some searching we could find a list of the Dumb-Dumbs? Ah, that would assume that Dumb-Dumbs exist! I ask you, are there any Dumb-Dumbs on Capital Hill?
Step 4. The Dumb-Dumbs hold hearings and look like they are about to get the Hollywood Dream Act passed.
Step 5. People who oppose the Hollywood Dream Act, and there is no shortage, get up on their hind legs, write checks to other lobbyists on M Street, and the battle is on. Legislators who oppose the Hollywood Dream Act get campaign donations, trips to Vegas, etc.
Step 6. The Hollywood Dream Act dies in committee or in negotiations between the House and Senate or has some killer amendments added, etc.
Ah, it was always just the 'Hollywood Dumb-Dumb Public Wet Dream Act' or 'Who Gets Screwed As the World Turns' anyway!
Net, M Street gets richer; both the Dumb-Dumbs and all the opposing legislators get campaign donations, which they don't return, and trips to Vegas, but nothing real happens. It's just Hollywood.
Naw, no one would ever do anything so stupid. That would be called a 'scam', and that's SUCH a pejorative locution! We can be SURE that M Street and Capitol Hill would NEVER engage in anything like a scam, can't we?
Moreover, they have quite a bit of political support in this administration. They've got everyone from the RIAA lawyers now in top Justice Department spots, the new Copyright Czar, the US Trade Representative (who negotiated ACTA), several members of the House Judiciary Committee (who are sponsors of this bill), and Vice President Biden.
Don't underestimate their ability or willingness to pass crazy laws.
I think hackers in tech industry should start making similar videos for our own, arguing against SOPA. For that thing, we indeed do have the technology, and we have the expertise.
They've made a large part of this about the common working man, when that's clearly not the motivation behind this video. They did it because they're pandering to their audience, who cares about that.
Throw in repeated South Park and other brand cameos for broad based appeal and an instant emotional connection (I have a hard time believing that Matt Stone and Trey Parker support this given their history of railing on people who complain about piracy as the reason they can't make money).
Finally, add in a lot of questionable statistics.
Basically, it's too carefully crafted for maximum impact to be or feel authentic. It's professional work and half truths masquerading as heartfelt interviews. That's why I say it's manipulative.
Here's something for a start (video at the bottom of the article): http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/11/16/silicon...
Yes. Not everyone has to be 'in' on the scam.
You seem to have some information that the WH will be for some such bill; that's more than I've known.
Biden? Yes, he would get to make a tie breaking vote in the Senate.
If you look at the subtext of the discussion held today, it was arranged to make it appear that this is Google vs. everyone else. Sure, that's because most other opposition was excluded. Some might think that's why the rest were excluded.
Politicians see this largely in economic terms. This would be a good time to point them to the economic studies which show that the costs already outweigh most of the public good and to drive home how this bill would kill our ability to create jobs by hitting startups with ridiculous legal burdens.
Honestly, though, I think that the most likely case is that a lame duck version of the bill will pass, resulting in an incremental rather than sweeping tightening of the noose around the Internet. That's usually how this crap happens, "As The Real World Turns".
RIAA/MPAA with more money than major telecoms? I'm not so sure...
I agree that maybe the more likely danger would be something a little bad instead of something horribly bad.
But, consider my (humorous) scenario: First-cut, the worse the Hollywood Dream Act is, the more donations get from people who oppose it!
Yes, there's a danger some such nonsense might pass. But there is also a chance, while some people will take the bills seriously, nearly all the attention is just to a scam. E.g., on the debt limit debate with the threat of no Social Security checks, my assumption all along was that both sides just wanted a lot of free publicity, and that's basically the way it came out. Yes, such scams are dangerous if only because one might get passed.
I've wanted to understand better what are the chances of passage. So far apparently in the House it is still in committee,
Yesterday I left messages against the bills on the phones of NY20 and the two NY senators. Fred Wilson says that Schumer's for it, and Wilson is "pissed" about that and knows that Schumer knows that.
Still, before I send letters to my three, maybe something should come out of committee and be in line for a floor vote? Else maybe my guy in NY20 might not even know what I am objecting to.
Hey, duck duck go might get some real legs if they work this one out =)
Some House hearings have transcripts at judiciary.house.gov/hearings/transcripts/. But not this one.
I decided to read the bill instead. I highly recommend it. The definitions alone are worth the read.
What if content is not addressed to a "location"?
What if there is no "site"?
What if a network is not accesible to the public?
Thanks to the staff who are responsible for this. Much appreciated!