House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
from the this-is-not-democracy dept
Ever since SOPA was introduced, we’d heard that the eventual House Judiciary Committee hearings on the bill would be an unfairly stacked deck. Despite such wide opposition to the bill, and the fact that this represents a massive change to the regulatory and technological framework of the internet, we’d been told, repeatedly, that the hearings would be set up with three representatives in favor of the bill, and just one against. Apparently, the supporters of the bill are simply too afraid to actually listen to that many concerns and have to surround themselves with “yes men” to think they’re doing the right thing.
Turns out that the decks are being even further stacked.
Today, we’re hearing that the head of NetCoalition, who many people expected to represent the wider tech and internet industry’s significant concerns about SOPA has been denied a seat at the hearings. This is the same group that has been requesting a seat at the negotiating table all along, and has been denied by the MPAA and its supporters. Basically, the decks are being stacked so far in favor of SOPA, that next week’s hearing will be a total joke. We’re even hearing rumors that it will now be 4 representatives in favor of SOPA, and no one who will represent the wider concerns of the internet industry that’s about to be regulated. Instead, the committee is looking for someone who will only raise some specific narrow concerns about the bill.
I guess I have a simple question: just what are Reps. Lamar Smith, John Conyers and Bob Goodlatte afraid of? Are they really so fragile that they can’t handle the idea that the wider internet industry is seriously worried about this bill? Must they only hear from those who helped write the bill in the first place? What kind of democracy is that?
Filed Under: copyright, hearings, netcoalition, sopa
Comments on “House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA”
They’ve been paid off adequately.
Re: Re:
Reps. Lamar Smith, John Conyers and Bob Goodlatte these are the faces of TRAITORS to the way of the USA.
Hope they pay dearly for their arrogance and greed.
They are thinking green.
I’ll let John and Paul say it for me…
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We’re doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah…
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of MAFIAA
You ain’t going to make it with anyone of us
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
Sad thing is, this time it isn’t gonna be all right
Re: Re:
Infringed!
TechDirt’s days are over…
You know, if they’re just selling tickets to this event, the least they could do is publicly post how much of a donation is required to attend, much less express an opinion.
They could run it through Ticketmaster or the nearest government equivalent to ensure the proper amount of added charges like Service Fees, Handling Fees, Convenience Fees, The Skim, etc. are collected.
Re: Re:
don’t forget breakage fees
Re: Re:
But that would be free market capitalism… not cronyism that we have now.
“Are they really so fragile that they can’t handle the idea that the wider internet industry is seriously worried about this bill?”
They just know the deck is so stacked in their favor, and no one can do anything to stop this. They have become openly arrogant, and stepped into the light. This is a huge mistake. They are flaunting that they do not care what the population at large has to say, or what they think about this. It shows they have no respect for the people who voted for them. In the end, the internet never forgets and this will come back to haunt them.
Re: Re:
the internet doesn’t forget, but the internet isn’t paying them :(.
.brazenpoliticalstatement {
truethat: Despite the inchoate-ness of youth, #OWS is calling out the regulatory capture of our governing institutions (both private and public governance). Support these kids and vote with them.
}
Re: Re: Re:
“the internet doesn’t forget, but the internet isn’t paying them”
Yes, the internet does not pay them. After various violent vicarious incidents 🙂 around the world, it was suggested that everyone be notified about what their politicians are doing. What their politicians are costing them financially. What rights are removing. What constitutional amendments they are violating. Who is funding their election campaigns. Who is working for them and their associations.
So now you have something far worse than Wikileaks in the works. Several groups aiming to bring everything that is in the public record to people in one place. The constitutionality of laws, voting records, the laws voted for and by whom, and everything politicians have done, as apps for Facebook and Google+.
My they live in interesting times.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
love the pratchett reference.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That just makes SOPA all the more critical. A website posts information the politician want’s buried? That information is marked “Copyrighted”, the site is declaired rogue and taken down. Pretty soon, no site will post anything that isn’t sanitary.
Good thing this is the land of Liberty…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sites will post anything they want, they just won’t depend on the DNS system anymore to do it.
This is what Mike means when he says that this bill will break the internet. The only reason websites are so easy to find currently is because we’ve tied IP addresses to nice strings of text.
The minute they start banning sites, everything will go underground. The internet will fragment, but it will still be there. Just not nearly as useful as it should be. It will be back to the early days of it’s creation when it was really nothing more than a wide area local network.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
In a way, I almost hope it happens. It will push the technology like nothing else! The new encrypted de-centrallized network would be much more resilient to this tampering.
Re: Re:
They just know the deck is so stacked in their favor, and no one can do anything to stop this. They have become openly arrogant, and stepped into the light. This is a huge mistake. They are flaunting that they do not care what the population at large has to say, or what they think about this. It shows they have no respect for the people who voted for them. In the end, the internet never forgets and this will come back to haunt them.
Or how about they’ve heard both side of the argument, heard from their constituents and made a decision you disagree with? Do you really think more than 10% of the population is even aware this bill is coming to the floor? So before you go off to live in a tent and get maced protesting this latest injustice, consider that you simply may just be in the minority. Your opinion is being heard. There are literally more than one hundred Google lobbyists along with the professional apologists from PK, EFF, CDT and others. Then don’t forget freelance lobbyists like Masnick and his clown posse. Your voice is being heard, but no one is buying your bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:
Contradict yourself much? Which is it? Does less than 10% know whats going on (and therefore 90% have no opinion), or are opposition views to this bill the minority?
The question remains, what is the harm in hearing publicly about why this bill is bad?
You’re the one shoveling bullshit that no one but bought off congressmen can swallow.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“what is the harm in hearing publicly about why this bill is bad?”
It does not becomes part of the government record for all time. So it can’t be used against these people in the future.
… “I told you so!”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Contradict yourself much? Which is it? Does less than 10% know whats going on (and therefore 90% have no opinion), or are opposition views to this bill the minority?
10% of the population are aware of this bill AND your side is small slice of that 10%.
The question remains, what is the harm in hearing publicly about why this bill is bad?
None, but it will only be a rehash of what everyone has already heard. BTW, the witness list hasn’t been published and Masnick doesn’t have a clue who will be testifying.
You’re the one shoveling bullshit that no one but bought off congressmen can swallow.
I know it must be upsetting to see your precious freeloading reined in. But at least try to be a good loser. Like on many political issues, one side wins the other loses.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Correct: the side that wins is usually the side with the money.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
10% of the population are aware of this bill AND your side is small slice of that 10%.
64,8% of statistics are made on spot out of plain sorcery and/or mental diseases.
The opposing side is so small that most senators are avoiding open support to the bill. Wonder why?
Keep fooling yourself and satisfying your alcoholic addiction to trolling if it suits you. Doesn’t make you right in one bit 😉
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
But the funny thing is, this will do nothing to stop the freeloading that I do. I watch ‘free’ OTA TV and listen to ‘free’ OTA radio. I haven’t ‘paid’ the ‘Industry’ in years.
Re: Re: Re:
“Do you really think more than 10% of the population is even aware this bill is coming to the floor?”
No, and that is why they will get away with passing this law.
“There are literally more than one hundred Google lobbyists along with the professional apologists from PK, EFF, CDT and others.”
With regulatory capture, unless Mike is going to hire a senator or intern nothing Mike says has any weight behind it on the hill.
“Your voice is being heard, but no one is buying your bullshit.”
Actually, my voice is just being ignored, I am not going to hire someone that, knowingly passes a law, that violates the US constitution.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Do you really think more than 10% of the population is even aware this bill is coming to the floor?”
No, and that is why they will get away with passing this law.
Finally. We agree on something. Though I don’t know if 100% of the population knew that the result would be different. The fact is this is about the level of awareness on just about every piece of legislation. Don’t blame me for your side’s apathy and inaction.
“There are literally more than one hundred Google lobbyists along with the professional apologists from PK, EFF, CDT and others.”
With regulatory capture, unless Mike is going to hire a senator or intern nothing Mike says has any weight behind it on the hill.
Nothing Mike says has any weight because he’s a zealot. Everyone hates zealots even if they fundamental favor their issue. Mike could pour a lot of money into EFF, PK or CDT and get his message across without embarrassing himself or hurting his own cause.
“Your voice is being heard, but no one is buying your bullshit.”
Actually, my voice is just being ignored, I am not going to hire someone that, knowingly passes a law, that violates the US constitution.
The leading constitutional scholar in the US differs with you on that, Your Honor. Time will tell.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Finally. We agree on something.”
Yes we do agree, it will pass, and that is a good thing. The problem is their is no “abuse of the law clause”. With the law as it stands, a good lawyer could argue based on SOPA and the just legal arguments the RIAA and MPAA have made and won, that a station playing an unauthorized cell phone video is liable for each broadcast by their affiliates and their websites. With the maximum penality being $150,000 USD per incident that has some potential. You should realize that some debt ridden lawyer is going to run with this when the law gets passed.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Finally. We agree on something.”
Yes we do agree, it will pass, and that is a good thing. The problem is their is no “abuse of the law clause”. With the law as it stands, a good lawyer could argue based on SOPA and the just legal arguments the RIAA and MPAA have made and won, that a station playing an unauthorized cell phone video is liable for each broadcast by their affiliates and their websites. With the maximum penality being $150,000 USD per incident that has some potential. You should realize that some debt ridden lawyer is going to run with this when the law gets passed.
Please point out the section of SOPA you are relying on for the recovery of monetary damages. I’m unable to locate it. Thanks.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Please point out the section of SOPA you are relying on for the recovery of monetary damages. I’m unable to locate it. Thanks.”
You do not have to look at SOPA. You have to look at Tenenbaum with a $150,000 USD mixed with SOPA. Take a Videos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial, broadcast by the news media, with out permission, and through its affiliates, then posted on their websites, with the legal agreements of the news organizations, a single video will be ripe for a class action lawsuit. Now imagine the lawsuits after someone sends a video done by someone else.
Yeah, you should have known it was infringing …. ROFLMAO
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If Mike’s word means nothing, why are you asshats in here all the time trashing everything he says? Yeah, that’s right, you wouldn’t!!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Stupid auto spell check thingy! I meant to say Lawyers, not asshats!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
LOVE IT, so when “our” side does something you don’t like do we get to use the line “Don’t blame me for your side’s apathy and inaction”
Now to the rest of your stupidity… Riddle me this batman, when the internet breaks, and the people are pissed, and all the technologist point to the Labels/Paid-for-Congressman/and shilltards like you as the reason little Timmy cant do a book report (and we wont fix it until your gone) what do you do then? Remember sparky “the people” you trample today will eventual get tired of the treatment, I would tell you to ask Qaddafi about it, but i doubt you have a hot line to hell to ask the question…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Now to the rest of your stupidity… Riddle me this batman, when the internet breaks,……
What do you mean breaks? DNS blocking and filtering have been going on for years. My internet is broken, it works just fine. In fact, I’m using it right now to point out what a imbecile you are.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
*isn’t*
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
*an* …. stupid spell check
Re: Re: Re:
If the people representing us isn’t allowed a seat at the table, then how and when are our concerns and opinions heard? You talk out of your ass, as always.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the people representing us isn’t allowed a seat at the table, then how and when are our concerns and opinions heard? You talk out of your ass, as always.
They’re at the table. They are called members of congress and senators.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Except they are bought and paid for. Through campaign money.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“If the people representing us isn’t allowed a seat at the table, then how and when are our concerns and opinions heard? You talk out of your ass, as always.
They’re at the table. They are called members of congress and senators.”
Great. Then those groups supporting it also don’t need a seat at the table, as they’re equally represented.
Re: Re:
They just know the deck is so stacked in their favor, and no one can do anything to stop this. They have become openly arrogant, and stepped into the light. This is a huge mistake. They are flaunting that they do not care what the population at large has to say, or what they think about this. It shows they have no respect for the people who voted for them. In the end, the internet never forgets and this will come back to haunt them.
Or how about they’ve heard both side of the argument, heard from their constituents and made a decision you disagree with? Do you really think more than 10% of the population is even aware this bill is coming to the floor? So before you go off to live in a tent and get maced protesting this latest injustice, consider that you simply may just be in the minority. Your opinion is being heard. There are literally more than one hundred Google lobbyists along with the professional apologists from PK, EFF, CDT and others. Then don’t forget freelance lobbyists like Masnick and his clown posse. Your voice is being heard, but no one is buying your bullshit.
Re: Re:
“but no one is buying your bullshit.”
Yes, because the only ones that are a ‘somebody’ are those who agree with you. Everyone else is just a ‘nobody’.
Re: Re:
Great post. The government is exposing their true motives. This isn’t just about the internet — it goes much farther. They (mistakenly) believe that they can do anything without suffering any consequences. People are becoming increasingly disgusted and angry. Perhaps the powers-that-be are intentionally testing our limits with the hope that things will devolve into an outbreak of violence and civil unrest, thereby giving them justification to declare martial law. Watching the “Occupy” movement in action, one thing I’ve gathered is that the majority of aggressive behavior is being perpetrated by the police, yet the media has the audacity to reprimand the protestors for even the slightest offense they can come up with. This reminds me of how big corporates perpetrate piracy by selling the public the disc-burner and blank discs by the stack-load with the expectation that nobody is ever going to burn copyrighted material.
Re: Re: Re:
” The government is exposing their true motives.”
The thing they are broadcasting is, not their motives, it is their belief they can do anything they want.
“Perhaps the powers-that-be are intentionally testing our limits with the hope that things will devolve into an outbreak of violence and civil unrest, thereby giving them justification to declare martial law.”
Its arrogance plain and simple. They think they are now above the law. What they are doing will not devolve into violence in the street. In the US, every riot has been about, cracking down on the poor making money, the local ignorant just having fun and relieving stress, or people driven by an external group. It has been the rioters that have gotten the worst of it.
Take the OWS (occupy wall street) movement, it is funded by progressive-socialist organizations, and unions wishing to push their agendas. The people participating are a local poverty problem, the organization funding it are astro-turfing. It’s worthless to push for marshal law.
How is this going to look …”hey did you hear? five blocks on Manhattan, six blocks in Boston, three in Chicago, had people rioting. They declared martial law in the US!”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The thing they are broadcasting is, not their motives, it is their belief they can do anything they want.”
No, their motives are clear as day. When was the last time they actually did something beneficial for the American people instead of pacifying the top corporations and special interest groups?
“Take the OWS (occupy wall street) movement, it is funded by progressive-socialist organizations, and unions wishing to push their agendas. The people participating are a local poverty problem, the organization funding it are astro-turfing. It’s worthless to push for marshal law.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if socialist groups are taking advantage of the situation to pander their world views. Nevertheless, that in no way lets off the reckless conduct of law enforcement. Penning people in like farm animals, spraying them with mace, punching and hitting, hurling flash grenades, firing rubber bullets, etc. Are they attempting to incite a riot?
BTW, what is the problem with unions?
“How is this going to look …”hey did you hear? five blocks on Manhattan, six blocks in Boston, three in Chicago, had people rioting. They declared martial law in the US!”.”
Don’t rule it out just because it seems improbable. Ten years ago, I would’ve thought it improbable that we’d allow the corporates to run roughshod over the internet, yet it’s becoming a reality.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Are they attempting to incite a riot?
Yes, it’s a tactic that worked in the UK. If you make people fight, you can vilify them. And you can say that the police are justified. They are already militarized enough. Especially looking at the Berkeley demonstrations.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
‘you make people your enemy, and then it justifies killing them, and just taking what you want’
– Jake Sully
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“BTW, what is the problem with unions?”
There is no problem with collective bargaining. There is how ever a problem with the monopoly of collective bargaining. If you had the ability to have multiple unions in the same work space, there would be no problem. But the ability for a single group to shut down a corporation or economy is ridiculous. No one should have that power it leads to abuse and the state the US is in now.
Despite such wide opposition to the bill, …..
Right. 25+ co-sponsors in the House. 42 co-sponsors in the Senate and Lofgren, Issa and Wyden against.
And please talk start on the “popular” opposition to that bill, Masnick. Just because you and the other losers from your LARP league oppose it, that doesn’t mean jack shit. The Chamber is behind it and can call on its corporate members to ask employees to support the bill. The AFL-CIO is behind it and they know how to rally support and turn out voters…. in the millions. Fomenting nerd rage is very different than demonstrating widespread opposition. A pity you didn’t learn anything in Washington.
Re: Re:
sorry, should be “don’t start”
Re: Re:
“and can call on its corporate members”
This bill is only intended to serve corporate interests (at public expense). At least you seem to indirectly admit this.
It’s not for the government to serve corporate interests. They should serve the public interest.
Re: Re: Re:
and of course corporations want monopoly privileges. What business doesn’t want a monopoly privilege. That’s no excuse to grant them. No one is entitled to them. The government should act in the public interest, not in the sole interests of a few corporations.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The bill is in my best interest and I don’t work for a corporation.
Thousands of self employed people will benefit.
Bravo to DC for doing the right thing.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Explain how. You say that self employed people will benefit. Those “benefits” are few and far between.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Like an idiot such as yourself, that doesn’t work in the business, would fucking know.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Then how about you explain it instead of just repeatedly insisting that it will. You keep saying it over and over again. Are you trying to convince us or yourself?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“A single profane expression betrays a low breeding.” -Joseph Cook
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Typical.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Like an idiot such as yourself, that doesn’t work in the business, would fucking know.
And why would I want to work as a lobbyist? Obviously, throwing smoke and mirrors to a legitimate question, which you do all the time isn’t helping anyone. If it’s so easy for a business to prosper with SOPA, with a dagger hanging to your back and a guillotine looking to cut off your head, I’d like to know how exactly a business does so. If there’s benefits to this legislation, there is obviously a lot lacking here if the entire US is up in arms about this.
Re: Re: Re:
“and can call on its corporate members”
This bill is only intended to serve corporate interests (at public expense). At least you seem to indirectly admit this.
It’s not for the government to serve corporate interests. They should serve the public interest.
What I said was, “can call on its corporate members to ask employees to support the bill.” So you cut out the part about corporations asking employees to support the bill, and then accuse me of admitting that this bill is intended to serve corporate interests at the the expense of the public? WTF? Are you now getting personal coaching from Masnick?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m just noting that this bill is for the corporations by the corporations. It’s not for the public. The public doesn’t want this bill anymore than it wants 95+ year copy protection laws (with no laws protecting against orphan work rot). These laws aren’t for the public, they don’t want them, just like they don’t want our existing insane copy protection laws. It’s why the pirate party continues to gain more and more momentum. The ones that want these laws are a hand full of legacy corporations.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
copy protection length *
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
While I’m against pirating material, uploading a video onto YouTube is not justification for the government to hand the big corporations a regulatory monopoly over the internet. SOPA is an invitation to abuse of power. There is such a thing as taking things too far.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’m just noting that this bill is for the corporations by the corporations. It’s not for the public. The public doesn’t want this bill anymore than it wants 95+ year copy protection laws (with no laws protecting against orphan work rot). These laws aren’t for the public, they don’t want them, just like they don’t want our existing insane copy protection laws. It’s why the pirate party continues to gain more and more momentum. The ones that want these laws are a hand full of legacy corporations.
The AFL-CIO represents about 13 million members of the public. Now what?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So, they’re your client?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Actually, unions tend to represent themselves. I’ve been in a union. It’s a waste of my money and effort. MOST top-level officers in unions don’t give a shit about the membership, especially if they can make money by pissing on them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Ironically, most unions are monopolies themselves. There’s nothing wrong with collective bargaining, but if you only have one union representing you, it kind of defeats the point.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys are always good for a laugh. Go ahead, call Mike and everyone that disagrees with you every name you can think of. In the end, nobody gives a shit what you think.
Re: Re: Re:
and besides, the MPAA already tried to start an astroturfing campaign to get people to sign a support petition, and it failed, badly. It even had to inflate its numbers to make it look like they have more support than they really had. The petitions opposing this bill have way more signatures. Nobody wants these laws beyond a few legacy corporations.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and besides, the MPAA already tried to start an astroturfing campaign to get people to sign a support petition, and it failed, badly. It even had to inflate its numbers to make it look like they have more support than they really had. The petitions opposing this bill have way more signatures. Nobody wants these laws beyond a few legacy corporations.
Fact is, that communications are communications. They all get weighed and considered along with the point of view of the parade of representatives of various business, groups and associations that parade through congressional offices. Creative America has generated more than 100,000 and counting. Perception is often what you make it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Creative America has generated more than 100,000 and counting.”
That number was fabricated and you’re still parroting it. Wow, some people never learn.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
and, when questioned about this by a commenter on the MPAA’s twitter accoun, the MPAA even admit that the 100,000 number was fake. and many of the people who did sign the petition were fooled into signing that petition, thinking it was about something else, and later demanded that their signature be retracted on the MPAA’s twitter. Yet you still continue to parrot those bogus numbers.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
account *
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
and if you don’t think the MPAA was being deceitful, even IP maximists were fooled. They defended the MPAA and the number of signatures claimed until after the MPAA admit that it didn’t have the support that it claimed. Then they continued to defend the MPAA, claiming that they weren’t deceitful. The IP maximists were wrong then and they’re still wrong about this. This bill does not have the public support that IP maximists claim it does. The people don’t want these laws. It’s why the pirate party continues to expand.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No it wasn’t. Creative America claimed to have generated more than 100.000 communication to legislators on the bill and it did. Masnick threw a hissy fit because he doesn’t understand the difference between a communication and a person, not understanding that a single person may be able to generate more than one communication.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“No it wasn’t.”
Yes it was. Even IP maximists were fooled, believing that the 100K number was the number of people in support of the bill, and they even defended that number until after the MPAA admit that this wasn’t the case.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
and you know what’s really telling. At the time the petition was first noticed on techdirt not a single IP maximist came to the defense of the MPAA and the allegations against it with the claim that the number of letters may not be referring to the number of supporters. Instead, they took a ‘wait and see’ approach with the idea of supporting whatever position the MPAA finally takes. It was not at all clear what the MPAA meant. The MPAA was being deliberately confusing.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
(IOW, if what the MPAA did was so obvious, why didn’t IP maximists initially defend them with this defense beforehand. Why is it that they parroted this defense only after the MPAA initially raised it)?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Creative America claimed to have generated more than 100.000 communication to legislators on the bill and it did.
Take a deep breath. Now let it out.
They’ve sent a copy of a letter to 3 people in Congress. Only ~4200 people have signed the CA letter.
Demand Progress has had over 8,000 people sign their petition IIRC. Now, if we’re to say the same thing, Demand Progress has more letters sent out than CA. So it’s up to you. You can use the fake number. But no matter how you slice it, more people are against SOPA than what CA is harping about.
Re: Re:
This fuckwad is a Neoconservative NWO promoting, could give a fuck less about what?s right, could care less about that pesky little paper called the Constitution, don?t care about the technical details, as long as I get paid, selfish, self centered, lowlife greedtard.
The ideology this shady bunch follows has a direct conflict what most of us believe this country should be i.e. Life liberty The Pursuit of happiness, Freedom, privacy. They are a cancer on society to which we have no cure. The industries that fund them have no clue. Sadly they are well funded and through years of erosion have established a strong foothold on those who make the decisions like parasites consuming its host. Unfortunately, like all creatures infected with parasites, unless properly treated, they die.
This bullshit bill will pass, sadly. More draconian bills will be introduced, and passed. And if you think this is all just about some people downloading music; don?t kid yourself. This is just a catalyst to further an Orwellian agenda. America as we knew it is done.
Re: Re: Re:
I love how you people try so hard to turn this into something more than it is; talking about freedom, rights, revolution.
You’re taking my work without asking, asshole.
Stop pretending it’s about anything other than that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
YOU are taking away my freedoms without asking, and without my input.
YOU make the erroneous assumption that we take your work. We don’t even know who you are, anonymous coward.
YOU make the erroneous assumption that a single download is a single lost sale.
(hint: most so-called “pirates” (or assholes in your view) are also the biggest group that pay for their media consumption. A lot of downloads either resulted because of a sale (ie, stuff that doesn’t work because of DRM, where the pirated stuff offered a better product) or will result in a sale (ooh I really like this, I’ll go out and buy the dvd to support the artist.))
YOU are shooting yourself in the foot with this bill, because it’ll take away your wide variety of self-promotion options. After this bill, you will only have the gatekeepers’ approved distribution method, and that won’t come cheap.
YOU make yourself look like a complete buffoon.
YOU are the asshole.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and you are hoping that this bill will fix that…
What happens if it doesn’t? What law will you ask to be passed next? $15 dollars a month “IP Tax” on everyones internet bill?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your shit work is NOT more important than MY rights, asshole.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who gives a shit about your work? You won’t event tell us who you are! This is about destroying the internet. (Which is our work, not yours)
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 10th, 2011 @ 5:10pm
Why would the AFL-CIO want to expose Visa and MasterCard or Google to a wave of frivolous lawsuits that would destabilize Internet commerce, force decentralized alternatives into the market, put revenue earned online another ten years out from taxation, and only serve to galvanize technology entrepreneurs in their disdain for conservative politicians and guarantee Obama’s west coast war chest?
ever notice how when freedom of information, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech get crapped on most average “patriots” do not care, but if anyone says anything about guns then everyone suddenly gets pissed about it and “stands up for their constitutional rights”? yet when the other freedoms mentioned get unconstitutionally and illegally abridged and denied the same people either say, “well the constitution is a guideline for law not a law itself,”(actual argument i got from a gun rights activist who rightly believes limiting the second amendment is illegal) or they say “it wont affect me so why should i care”. the ultimate reason these laws are getting passed is because we let them be passed by not fighting back with ORGANIZED protests, and demanding resignation of people involved. i dont mean sending letters that will never be read. send messages that cant be ignored, because we are fighting for our freedom now. the government has become just as oppressive as the brits were when we were still a few colonies of england. if not more so.
SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Yet again, what you mis-term “tech” or “wider internet”, or “entrepreneurs”, or whatever, those are the people who for the last decade or so have been GRIFTING off Big Media, or whatever pejorative you like, the ones who /actually/ produce the content.
Yes, SOPA upsets the grifters who try to leverage “content” without paying for it. That’s as it should be.
So there’s really no need to hear the views of grifters. I’m not against it as a matter of form, but it’s true that those views are known. And it’s not going to change minds: any hearings are just for show. — I’d like the owners of Hotfile and Rapidshare and other file lockers to show up expecting to testify, and be arrested, though.
“What kind of democracy is that?” — One run by capitalists who own the cartels, Mike.
Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Of course, the USA is not a democracy and never has been but a republic
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Yup a Granny Smith isn’t an apple it’s a fruit.
Re: Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Direct democracy -refer Switzerland- is a form of government in which people collectively make decisions for themselves, rather than having their political affairs decided by representatives.
Representative democracy stands in contrast to the direct form in that the represented can only act indirectly with decisive authority vested in a subset of people.
The USA is a Republic which is similar to representative democracy; ie. A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president…
The important difference is that you do not make any decisions but your ‘elected representative’ does so on ‘your’ behalf.
They look after your interests real good, don’t they?
So it is a lot more than the difference between various types of apples.
Re: Re: Re:2 SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Except when, in the case of these hearings, that the view of the general public is being willfully ignored. Sure, the hearings might still be a sham, but it’d be nice if “We the People” would actually get a voice in them, instead of only the “yes-men”.
Re: Re: Re:3 SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Note to self: stop voting for yes men.
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
@ jon (profile), Nov 10th, 2011 @ 5:39pm
Of course, the USA is not a democracy and never has been but a republic
—————
Of course, “capitalism” has never been a free or fair market, but most generally a plutocracy that rewards ruthless exploitation. The USA was fairly open for a while solely because we lacked an entrenched ruling class of inherited parasites. Financial manipulation nearly destroyed the country in 1929, but Roosevelt saved it. Over the last fifty years, the plutocrats have taken over again.
Re: Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
I really don’t get you. It’s like you have multiple personality disorder or something.
Re: Re: Re:2 SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
I know right? Hitler thought he was right in his own head too. You advocate fdigital genocide. The copies just want to live.
Re: Re: Re:2 SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
@ lucidrenegade (profile), Nov 10th, 2011 @ 6:22pm
I really don’t get you. It’s like you have multiple personality disorder or something.
—————
I`m just wild about Harry and Harry’s wild about me;
I`m just wild about Harry and he’s just wild about,
he can’t do without, he’s just wild about me!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Yeah, a banana republic run by people who tease wild animals and wonder why they’re wounded and hated.
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
Can we PLEASE stop with that bullshit, nonsense argument? It’s meaningless and adds nothing. It’s be argumentative for arguments sake.
Re: Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of "the wider internet industry"!
WTF do American conservatives mean when they say this?
According to Canadian usage, there is no conflict between being a republic (elected titular head of state) and a democracy (elected assembly with actual power). I guess they mean something else but what is it?
Re: SOPA isn't for parasites of
You’re so blind. It’s a virtual land grab by an old industry that missed the boat and going legal is their only way back in. I’ve seen people sue each other for less in Second Life.
sopa
This is the democracy you want the rest of the world to emulate? Where the one with the money has the vote?
The land of privilege -A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.
The home of laughing-stock -An object of jokes or ridicule.
Have you never wondered why your Government changes between Conservative and Liberal but your countries policies remain the same?
Re: sopa
Because party lines are just a distraction, a false front. The destruction of America is an inside job. I wish it weren’t true but more and more I’m convinced that there’s more than a little truth with some of the conspiracy theories out there. The Bilderbergs, Rockefellers, Freemasons, Illuminati, NWO, et al.
Re: Re: sopa
I’m inclined to go with Hanlon’s Razor on the subject. No dark conspiracy, just a ruling class of executives and politicians that happen to be very greedy and very, very stupid.
Re: Re: Re: sopa
I used to be like you, but frankly, it goes too far not to be intentional.
It’s greed and egoism and a psychotic disregard for the welfare of others.
Two half-wrongs don't make a right.
A phrase that occurred to me reviewing the arguments that sites which provide links to infringing material, and file lockers that “unknowingly” host infringing material, are not separately liable for the resulting infringement. Of course, that’s a legalistic loophole, and so I make the catchphrase.
Re: Two half-wrongs don't make a right.
“It transpires that a legalistic loophole in the definition of “harm a human” is allowing the robots to harm humans.”
Irobot much?
This is notice that you have infringed on multiple Copyrights and Trademarks in your comment, on the post:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111110/13455416712/house-judiciary-committee-refuses-to-hear-wider-tech-industry-concerns-about-sopa.shtml?threaded=true#c1035
You are hereby informed that our legal team will be abusing the court system to obtain your IP address and force the site TECHDIRT.COM to provide any and all information about you, and your ISP to provide all internet activity for the past year, and shut down your connection FOREVER. We will then send one of our representatives with local police to raid your home and confiscate your possessions, then throw you in jail.
Re: Two half-wrongs don't make a right.
While it seems that the arguments are in fact yellow, the flavor that sound makes is not a good comment on the glass guvmints.
Frog blast the vent core.
What is an “internet industry”? I know there are companies that make the hardware and software needed to run it, but it seems to me that most of the companies doing the complaining are merely users.
My feeling is that they are trying to avoid the vague, generalized hand wringing that has been going on in various places including Techdirt, and instead to address specific concerns of specific industry players.
It’s pretty much a smart move to avoid spending a long time bogged down in philosophical discussions about “internet freedom” and instead focusing on making a law that makes sense.
Sorry, but if you can only bring hand waving and “you will break the internet” to the table, why bother?
Re: Re:
So rather than address and “correct” these views, they ignore them? Genius.
Re: Re:
Sorry, but if you can only bring talking points and the needs of industry players to the table, why bother?
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think it’s just “talking points”?
I made the point early today: the recorded music industry worldwide (including digital online sales like Itunes and others) are down net 58% since 2000. Yet, today we have more digital devices, the average person has a bigger library of songs, and so on.
Piracy, it seems, does hurt.
Now, that loss of revenue means a loss of tax revenue for the governments. It means the loss of jobs up and down the line as the industry tries to keep it’s bottom line intact.
It’s not just talking points, it’s a huge amount of money (more than 15 billion worldwide) of music sales that are gone – even as music consumption reaches an all time high.
They don’t just bring talking points, they bring a serious concern, one that has economic implications for the US, and they are only one area in a host of players who are victims of piracy, counterfeiting, and so on.
What is on the other side? What woudl the Net coalition bring to the table? “you are going to break the internet”?
Sorry, not buying it. I know why they aren’t at the table, because they wouldn’t be coming to be constructive, and they wouldn’t be coming with anything to put on the table.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I made the point early today: the recorded music industry worldwide (including digital online sales like Itunes and others) are down net 58% since 2000. “
yeah, and gallon of gas in 2000 was $1.51 too. Nice way to throw arbitrary numbers around like facts. The money didnt just dissappear, it went elsewhere. To blame it all on piracy is intellectual dishonesty.
Piracy, it seems, does hurt. – Just weak.
And the rest of your arguement just falls apart there.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“yeah, and gallon of gas in 2000 was $1.51 too. Nice way to throw arbitrary numbers around like facts. The money didnt just dissappear, it went elsewhere. To blame it all on piracy is intellectual dishonesty.”
I didn’t blame it all on piracy, rather I am just pointing out that there is a big situation, and certainly piracy would appear to be part of the game. Piracy does appear to hurt. It isn’t the only reason, but it certainly appears to hurt. It would be incredibly ignorant to think otherwise.
Arbitrary numbers? What the fuck? I bring actual numbers to the game, and you dismiss them as not real? Nice troll!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I didn’t blame it all on piracy, rather I am just pointing out that there is a big situation, and certainly piracy would appear to be part of the game. Piracy does appear to hurt. It isn’t the only reason, but it certainly appears to hurt. It would be incredibly ignorant to think otherwise.
Let me give you a list of things which are incredibly ignorant:
1. Thinking this bill will have any meaningful impact on music sharing.
2. Ignoring EVERY independent study of the recording industry which has consistently shown that “piracy” is the result of the industries failure to embrace digital.
3. Believing that it is the governments job to step in and ensure the profits of a specific industry. If making music is such a losing proposition monetarily THEN STOP MAKING MUSIC. I don’t care if the recording industries profits are down 10,000%, the government, the people, NO ONE OWES YOU MONEY.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re really going with the tax angle? Remember that UMG paid less than 5% of its tax liability in 2008. The other labels all paid similar amounts. But SOPA is needed to combat “piracy”.
Funny, that
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s odd that “Anonymous Coward, Nov 10th, 2011 @ 6:54pm” attributes all lost sales to piracy. Take me, for example. Lost sales from me are a result of me not buying movies and music anymore (and I don’t infringe/download, either). I spend my money elsewhere, so the tax revenue is unaffected. I would bet there are many more like me that have decided not to support the MPAA and RIAA by buying what they offer.
One exception to my music purchases: I bought some songs from Trent Reznor directly from his website. Also, Radiohead. See, I guess I do buy music from those that provide a reason to buy. I bet my purchasing directly from the artist are part of your “lost sales” calculation. They aren’t lost sales; they are just not being filtered by the RIAA.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And my money goes to games moreso than music. I haven’t found a CD I wanted in years. But game music is free with no direct way for people to get it other than to download it. Maybe if it was $2-$5 for a game CD I would think about it and buy a ton. As it stands, I have to find it all on different sites because no one caters to that market.
Re: Re:
“Sorry, but if you can only bring hand waving and “you will break the internet” to the table, why bother?”
Actually we brought “You will break the internet” and a 17 page abstract (Notice not even a full description, just an abstract really) of why It would ACTUALLY Break the internet.
Your defense, name calling and placing undue burden on the tech industry to solve the content industries’ problems.
What kind of democracy is that?
What kind of democracy is that?
The best kind that money can buy.
Congress has an 8% approval rating. What a joke.
The Internet’s too complex for their feeble old minds, and the fact that someone disagrees with them bothers them so much, they plug their ears and yell “get off my lawn you nerds and give me all your money!” when they detect any counterpoint.
Re: Re:
In this case it’s, “I built a fence around my lawn … naa naaa”
Must they only hear from those who helped write the bill in the first place? What kind of democracy is that?
Simple, one bought and paid for by the MPAA and RIAA.
The piece of shit politicians don’t even try to pretend that they represent the people any more. They might as well have “Property of MPAA/RIAA” stamped on their foreheads.
Mike, I believe it is called American Democracy.
Bought and paid for
Of course the House Judiciary Committee won’t hear from the opponents of the SOPA law-they’ve been bought and paid for all along.
It would make them accountable for the bill if they were asked the hard questions by people who know more about the bill and its’ implications than they do.
I’m not saying the Congressmen are dumb, but they’re certainly not brave to not hear from anyone but their sponsors.
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!”
did anyone expect anything different? look at how much ‘encouragement has come from the entertainment industries’. look at how much ‘encouragement’ the politicians have been given. pretty obvious that there will be nothing democratic about the way this bill progresses. joe public ignored and sailed down the river yet again!. most of the public have no idea at all what is going to happen, when it’s going to happen or the consequences to them until it’s too late! it’s the excuses that will be used after all goes to rat shit that i’m waiting for.
I think the better question is, “who are they representing?” It is certainly not the people who elected them.
Does anyone know how fast this bill could become law?
Re: Re:
Does anyone know how fast this bill could become law?
first quarter 2012
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks, I didn’t think it would be that soon.
Dying industries are desperate
The whole joke is still on the MPAA and RIAA. Enforcement of this bill will be a nightmare. Major ISP’s and Tech Giants who have loads of cash will employ legions of lawyers as they have almost unlimited resources to fight these things. This will cost the government untold amounts of tax dollars fighting each and every legal battle. The government will get tired of the bill because technology is such an important part of our “growth economy” and it will not be worth the tax dollars. This law will probably only be successfully applied a few times and only to small ISP’s and weaker companies. The MPAA and RIAA have barked up the wrong tree and this will make our government’s life hell fighting the nearly invincible tech giants Google, Microsoft and Apple…
I weep for Liberty.
v? m?y bay
chuy?n cung cấp v? m?y bay
ss
I weep for Liberty.
then how and when are our concerns and opinions heard? You talk out of your ass, as always.
comments
Your article is very interesting and rewarding. Thank you
Thank you, it’s interesting
xe mien nam
The other labels all paid similar amounts. But SOPA is needed to combat “piracy”.
alono
The only fees that ought to be paid to some broker
ahead of that loan closing are those that connect with document preparation or business plan development tickets calgary kijiji
they all operate in the uk and they are licenced from
the office of fair trading to advance money.
Cơ hội đầu tư với Sunshine City
Thank you, it’s interesting