> A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.
This statement, in my eyes, shows just how ridiculous the whole thing is. Regardless of your political leanings, I think most folks in the US right now agree that Congress is doing a pretty shoddy job of representing the people's interests. It's basically a joke, on both sides of the aisle at the moment, when politicians claim to be doing what's best for the public.
There are a lot of things that go right every day, and we don't hear about them, which is unfortunate.
But the things that politicians are beating their chests over right now are so obviously in the interests of lobbying groups and "big money" that it's ridiculous. Lady Gaga might lose money to piracy, but she is hardly a starving artist. And those artists that are usually are happy to get ANY kind of exposure, even if it's through piracy.
Also, and this is lost sometimes in the debate, piracy is responsible for the spread of a lot of ideas. And almost everyone does it at some point in their life. Even Lars Ulrich from Metallica - he and James bonded while Lars was at James's house, ripping LPs to tape. Times have not changed much.
Most people are dissatisfied with Congress, but I suspect that if you asked them to compare America to anywhere else in the world, they'd immediately jump to America's defense. My favorite line I've heard from some of my friends: "Our system may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got."
Not to mention the sheer bigotry of blaming piracy on "foreign criminals", which makes this the pure nuts. Is the average US pirate kind of tanned, has a really tacky foreign accent, or conveys in any other way a vaguely menacing ethnicity?
"It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests."
What I love about that quote is it could clearly be used to condem the PSAs they've been playing in theaters and tacking on DVDs quite some time now. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE9-W9JNjio
I thought that bit was really interesting. The MPAA and other SOPA supporters adamantly maintain that the law would only serve to enforce copyright infringement. Is Chris Dodd trying to say that Google, Wikipedia, etc. have an interest in preserving piracy? Or, more likely, is this simply a rhetorical contradiction?
Chris Dodd went from being a senator in 2010 to being head of the MPAA in 2011... and he calls political protest an abuse of power? He is the canonical example of what's wrong with our revolving door political system.
There's a curious parallel in the social malignancy between the banks he used to regulate and the MPAA he now commands.
Both had (and have) a legitimate purpose, both delivered value to society, and both used the proceeds of their enterprise to secure rents at the cost of society.
I cannot empathise with the OP on the whole; the music and publishing industries, though kicking and screaming plenty, are reforming. The film industry has yet to figure out heads and tails of their predicament, but neither did Kodak and we rarely call their incompetence evil.
Where I converge is on the malignancy of the industries actions; SOPA/PIPA is an attack on civil and productive society. In that act of selfishness and rather-burn-Berlin-than-let-her-fall rhetoric is, in my mind, morally UN-forgivable.
This financial mess we're in which started with a housing bubble in part caused by crazy loans? He was Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which oversees that sector and received a special loan as a "friend" of Countrywide Financial, which was one of the biggest problem lenders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countrywide_financial_political...
"some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users..."
I wonder if the MPAA has heard of DRM. Of course, said 'interests' have evaluated the cost of annoying their customers against the social and economic cost of SOPA and make their own decision.
"... or turn them into their corporate pawns"
Because, in the eyes of the MPAA, information is bad and/or people are stupid.
"It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today."
Using their market freedom to protect their market freedom? How dare they!
Etc.
"...designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals."
Yes, the poor and weak American elected official must be protected from the wrath of the informed populous.
Chris Dodd? That name sounds familiar. Wasn't that guy a U.S. Senator for 30 years? Oh right...
> In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist," Dodd was identified by The New York Times as the likely replacement for Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The hiring was officially announced on March 1, 2011.
Between this and the "debate" on MSNBC the other day, it makes me despair when the other side has that kind of firepower and disregard for fair play. Classic example of regulatory capture (in this case, of the US Congress, which is explicitly designated in the Constitution as having the power to establish copyright).
The great-great-grandpappy of whoever authored this press release, in late August of 1831, in a dispatch from Southampton County, VA:
"It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on [Negroe slaves] for [labor] and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the [sunshine and fresh air] these [Negroes] enjoy in the [cotton fields] today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the [Negroes] that serve as gateways to [cheap cotton] intentionally skew the [shovels and pitchforks] to incite their [fellow human witnesses] in order to further their [basic human] interests."
So protests and black outs in protest of a bad bill are an abuse of power but funneling millions of dollars to create a bill that censors the Internet isn't? I don't think I could detest the MPAA more than I do at this very moment.
It's so disgusting that Chris Dodd just retired from being a senator for 30 years and now is the CEO of a corporate lobbying firm pushing legislation in congress. He represents everything that is wrong with politics in the country. Fuck him.
"It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts"
You know what I've noticed about this? When it comes to this topic, the people on the PIPA/SOPA side of things who are saying the facts are getting skewed NEVER get around to actually discussing the substance of the facts and trying to set the record straight.
Go ahead, Mr. Dodd. Educate us -- if you can. You and the clients you've sold yourself to have a pretty big media platform for speaking yourself. Surely it wouldn't be too big of a challenge to address specific misconceptions, rather than just using weasel words to imply that there's a problem that you can't seem to actually explain.
Hmmm.... what about the abuse of power by the Copyright Lobby pouring millions of millions of dollars into the legislator's campaigns and PAC's? That kind of lobbying is OK, while net.lobbying isn't?
I think the /real/ abuse of power here isn't the RIAA/MPAA at all... it's the US (or rather, govt and certain corporations thereof) thinking that because key Internet infrastructure is located on their territory, they have a right to screw with it.
If the US were to start messing with, say, DNS, it seems fairly obvious that they couldn't restrict the effects to their own country (especially since the Internet is canonically /not/ organised around national boundaries). So, they'd be breaking not only their own internet but everyone else's too - and they simply do not have that right, morally speaking.
If bills like SOPA/PIPA pass, I intend to write to my MP about the importance of establishing a separate infrastructure that co-operates with, but is not dominated by, the existing system. The US has too much control over things like name authorities and SSL root CAs. ICANN is a US corporation. If the US wanted to break the BGP routing table, they wield enough power to do it (heck, AS7007 did it by /accident/).
It is becoming increasingly clear that the US cannot be trusted with stewardship of the global Internet; a still more decentralised approach is needed.
(Maybe, if they break it entirely, we can build a new one with all the lessons we've learned over the past few decades about how to build peer-to-peer decentralised internetworking. Plus, y'know, we could use IPv6 from the start)
someone should go on Foxnews and explain to those viewers that this is:
1., Big government grabbing the freedom of its people
2., After freedom of speech, your guns are next. They will raid your homes without warrants on the pure premise that someone has maybe placed a gun there.
Turn the Foxnews/Tea Party monster against Murdoch.
[+] [-] bitops|14 years ago|reply
This statement, in my eyes, shows just how ridiculous the whole thing is. Regardless of your political leanings, I think most folks in the US right now agree that Congress is doing a pretty shoddy job of representing the people's interests. It's basically a joke, on both sides of the aisle at the moment, when politicians claim to be doing what's best for the public.
There are a lot of things that go right every day, and we don't hear about them, which is unfortunate.
But the things that politicians are beating their chests over right now are so obviously in the interests of lobbying groups and "big money" that it's ridiculous. Lady Gaga might lose money to piracy, but she is hardly a starving artist. And those artists that are usually are happy to get ANY kind of exposure, even if it's through piracy.
Also, and this is lost sometimes in the debate, piracy is responsible for the spread of a lot of ideas. And almost everyone does it at some point in their life. Even Lars Ulrich from Metallica - he and James bonded while Lars was at James's house, ripping LPs to tape. Times have not changed much.
[+] [-] nitrogen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lolcraft|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chernevik|14 years ago|reply
Man, I HATE it when companies do that.
[+] [-] nostromo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] felipemnoa|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rpedroso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SeanDav|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sage_joch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|14 years ago|reply
Both had (and have) a legitimate purpose, both delivered value to society, and both used the proceeds of their enterprise to secure rents at the cost of society.
I cannot empathise with the OP on the whole; the music and publishing industries, though kicking and screaming plenty, are reforming. The film industry has yet to figure out heads and tails of their predicament, but neither did Kodak and we rarely call their incompetence evil.
Where I converge is on the malignancy of the industries actions; SOPA/PIPA is an attack on civil and productive society. In that act of selfishness and rather-burn-Berlin-than-let-her-fall rhetoric is, in my mind, morally UN-forgivable.
[+] [-] cjensen|14 years ago|reply
This financial mess we're in which started with a housing bubble in part caused by crazy loans? He was Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which oversees that sector and received a special loan as a "friend" of Countrywide Financial, which was one of the biggest problem lenders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countrywide_financial_political...
[+] [-] funkshanker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polemic|14 years ago|reply
I wonder if the MPAA has heard of DRM. Of course, said 'interests' have evaluated the cost of annoying their customers against the social and economic cost of SOPA and make their own decision.
"... or turn them into their corporate pawns"
Because, in the eyes of the MPAA, information is bad and/or people are stupid.
"It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today."
Using their market freedom to protect their market freedom? How dare they!
Etc.
"...designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals."
Yes, the poor and weak American elected official must be protected from the wrath of the informed populous.
Le Sigh.
[+] [-] dgreensp|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defen|14 years ago|reply
> In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist," Dodd was identified by The New York Times as the likely replacement for Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The hiring was officially announced on March 1, 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd
Between this and the "debate" on MSNBC the other day, it makes me despair when the other side has that kind of firepower and disregard for fair play. Classic example of regulatory capture (in this case, of the US Congress, which is explicitly designated in the Constitution as having the power to establish copyright).
[+] [-] feralchimp|14 years ago|reply
"It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on [Negroe slaves] for [labor] and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the [sunshine and fresh air] these [Negroes] enjoy in the [cotton fields] today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the [Negroes] that serve as gateways to [cheap cotton] intentionally skew the [shovels and pitchforks] to incite their [fellow human witnesses] in order to further their [basic human] interests."
[+] [-] RexRollman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] electromagnetic|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notJim|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MetallicCloud|14 years ago|reply
Ever since they've announced the blackout, it's been all over Australian newspapers and radio. I hope it's having the same effect in America.
[+] [-] robryan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkassis|14 years ago|reply
If you don't know what I mean, here is a funny parody of these warnings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
The Hypocrisy is at an all new level.
[+] [-] scott_w|14 years ago|reply
Remind me, the next time I write to my MP, that I'm abusing my power and trying to subvert democratically elected representatives.
[+] [-] bad_user|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlcx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shenglong|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|14 years ago|reply
Protests: Unethical Bribes: Ethical
[+] [-] guelo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wwweston|14 years ago|reply
You know what I've noticed about this? When it comes to this topic, the people on the PIPA/SOPA side of things who are saying the facts are getting skewed NEVER get around to actually discussing the substance of the facts and trying to set the record straight.
Go ahead, Mr. Dodd. Educate us -- if you can. You and the clients you've sold yourself to have a pretty big media platform for speaking yourself. Surely it wouldn't be too big of a challenge to address specific misconceptions, rather than just using weasel words to imply that there's a problem that you can't seem to actually explain.
[+] [-] toyg|14 years ago|reply
"First they ignore you (the 90s - "internet what? here, buy some CDs instead")
then they laugh at you (2000s - "we can shut down those nerds in seconds!")
then they fight you (2010s - "let's write laws all over the world to criminalize new technology")
then you win." (2020s...?)
[+] [-] Helianthus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tytso|14 years ago|reply
Sigh...
[+] [-] ec429|14 years ago|reply
If the US were to start messing with, say, DNS, it seems fairly obvious that they couldn't restrict the effects to their own country (especially since the Internet is canonically /not/ organised around national boundaries). So, they'd be breaking not only their own internet but everyone else's too - and they simply do not have that right, morally speaking.
If bills like SOPA/PIPA pass, I intend to write to my MP about the importance of establishing a separate infrastructure that co-operates with, but is not dominated by, the existing system. The US has too much control over things like name authorities and SSL root CAs. ICANN is a US corporation. If the US wanted to break the BGP routing table, they wield enough power to do it (heck, AS7007 did it by /accident/).
It is becoming increasingly clear that the US cannot be trusted with stewardship of the global Internet; a still more decentralised approach is needed.
(Maybe, if they break it entirely, we can build a new one with all the lessons we've learned over the past few decades about how to build peer-to-peer decentralised internetworking. Plus, y'know, we could use IPv6 from the start)
[+] [-] pinaceae|14 years ago|reply
1., Big government grabbing the freedom of its people
2., After freedom of speech, your guns are next. They will raid your homes without warrants on the pure premise that someone has maybe placed a gun there.
Turn the Foxnews/Tea Party monster against Murdoch.
[+] [-] jfoutz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lagged2Death|14 years ago|reply
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-08-04/