What innovations can really change their business model?
What can really take the power out of the hands of these huge companies with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists?
If Silicon Valley is all about innovation, how can that strength be used to win this fight once and for all?
And then I want to see that company public remand that politician for being all about the money. Taken to an extreme, if there were a handful of these guys that would take some cash to turn around (and I know that may be lots of cash) and then for the company to then take out a full page ad in the major newspapers: "This person is so easily swayed by money... do you really want them in charge?". Destroy them. Publicly humiliate them and see how quickly they all stop playing these games.
Who knows, you might even be able to skip step one and just take out the ad "This person gets paid $X a year by the recording industry and they are destroying your freedoms".
That's what I'd love to see, at least...
Contrary to what he says, the blackouts were driven from sites' user-bases, rather than the reverse. And negotiation and planning for them began well before the Administration's statement (limited in scope as it was, to boot).
Of course, most of us here know this. Just remember, you're dealing with (consummate) liars.
In this statement. And when they say things are "dead". And basically, as the saying goes, whenever you see their lips moving.
We're all doing a pretty good job of making our representation know we don't like this legislation, I wish it were as easy to let the people responsible for engineering this crap just how horrible a thing they're doing.
I have some thoughts about how to effectively address the politicians who are the tools in this (note that Dodd would now be in good part a tool wielder rather than a tool, having moved to the other side of Washington's revolving door). However, talk's cheap, and I've restrained myself from posting them when I don't have any further, concrete steps to take or taken, personally, with respect to what I think might be effective. (I've communicated to numerous parties, including written letters to my legislators.)
As for his address, the MPAA office address is readily available. But I doubt anything would actually get through to Dodd. He's not interested in listening.
What is SOPA going to do to stop foreign thieves? I thought it was limited to American ISPs? Unless they mean domestic thieves who use foreign sites...
On the content providers' side they see a close election for both the Presidency and the Senate (the House is likely to stay GOP no matter what). This means two very important things...
1. Control of the entire federal government is up for grabs
2. All Senate races will be under the microscope. Even those that don't usually get attention. Meaning Senators who aren't used to raising large sums of money are going to need large sums of money.
Both these factors mean the content providers' money is worth even more and they know it. So now is the time to push.
But the politician's are scared by protests. A close election means even a (relatively) small group of Internet activists could turn it. That makes politicians scared of laws that get people riled up.
So the content providers need to both pay off policitians AND find a strategy that gives them political cover. The best way to do that in a bad economy is to frame it as a "jobs bill". Especially since it's the exact strategy that worked in Spain just a few months ago.
That's why you're hearing about jobs and foreign thieves.
Second step: filter the information you get in US. Make the Internet more like TV. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2XPiqhN_Ns)
Essentially their aim is to stop foreign theves from having any domestic (US) customers/downloaders/viewers.
There's also a counteracting benefit to the IP owner, if illegal downloads serve to advertise his IP and induce more people to buy. Overall the connection to "traditional, physical theft" is weak.
Seems like congress people bend over backwards for companies that donate as little as $100K to their reelection campaigns.
There are 535 people in congress, so we'd need to raise 53,500,000 to make it happen. A small price to pay if you think about it
To be safe, might want to support both candidates, so double that number to 107 million. So if 1 out of 3 Americans donates a dollar to the goal, it could happen.
To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy
Even this isn't technically a lie. SOPA would protect some businesses and jobs from some thieves.
I don't think it's a good way to go about it, and I think the other consequences outweigh the benefits, but as it stands your comment doesn't really make sense in this context.
Regarding "proving the lies" sites like http://www.politifact.com/ are quite good.
Under current US law - downloading sharing unauthorized digital goods is theft under at least some circumstances, and therefore any rules about truth in politics are unlikely to be activated by that statement.
(insert disclaimer about how I understand that digital goods are an infinite resource and therefor making a copy cannot be theft. Please be assured I understand your objections - I am confining my point to the impossibility of "truth in politics" being used against the statement made, given the law at the current time)
This would essentially reframe the issue from a piracy/copyright violation issue to a censorship issue. It would then be a censorship bill, not a jobs bill.
The main problem is how much influence industry and lobby groups have on our politicans, and the vast majority of this isn't some conspiracy-laden secret-hand-shaking secret, it's just campaign financing.
Despite some attempts in that direction, we haven't done enough here. I'm convinced that, if we slam the door shut on lobbying groups' ability to fund politicians, their influence will vaporize overnight. If corporations are people, then they need to be on a level playing field - they shouldn't be able to simply outspend regular citizens in contributing to politicians.
I ask because stuff like this is used to abuse Google (see the Viacom vs Youtube lawsuit) and they have oodles of money and a super PAC and everything. If one can simply buy a politician why haven't they bought them all off? Seems expedient.
That they haven't has made me wonder how causative this problem is with respect to bad public policy. I'd be interested in ways to validate where the problem is.
They could be creating PSAs. They could be backing television shows and movies which portray piracy in a negative light. They could do this skillfully, and in a manner that isn't laughably heavy handed (like the pre-movie PSAs that were mocked on The IT Crowd). Look at that article about diamonds from awhile back, and how stunningly successful De Beers was in inserting diamonds into the public mind. Compare that with the heavy-handed, simplistic legislation approach that the MPAA and friends are following.