The real question, now that it looks like SOPA in its current state probably won’t pass, will ICE continue to unilaterally seize domains now that the public is up-in-arms over censorship of the Internet? It’s obvious that SOPA was an effort to legitimize ICE’s previous actions which, if this bill is defeated, are effectively de-legitimized. I think it will make Roja Direct’s case a limitless more easy to win.

“challenger” not “challengers”.

Further, you have to accept the idea that anyone fighting for office will generally take the opposite position to the incumbent, especially if they think they can get some brownie points with one group or another.

I note that these stories appear to be getting more and more desperate.

WHO has the moral right to profit from the works

That’s where you you lose me. The answer to that question is: nobody. No one has a moral right to profits. Markets don’t work that way. You may try to persuade others into giving you money in exchange for your goods or services. But if I don’t care for your goods or prices, you won’t get money from me.

anyone fighting for office will generally take the opposite position to the incumbent

Not if the incumbent is holding a popular position. In that case, the challenger generally point out that the incumbent isn’t strong enough on that position.

In this case, it appears that SOPA is not a popular position to hold.

“Why aren’t you similarly protesting the Patriot Act?” I was also against the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was legislated a while ago so you would need to look at the techdirt archives, if there are any, to see whether Mike protested it.

I will say that every time it comes up for renewal Mike does stories about the Patriot Act and how bad it is for Americans.

Actually, it’s sort of a non-issue at this point. SOPA may be big news here, but it isn’t making the mainstream media in the slightest, and I suspect that most people in the public wouldn’t know it from a hole in the ground.

Explained as “censorship” (which it is not), it will ring as an unpopular position. Explained as a method to protect the US industries and perhaps encourage employment in the long run, it’s hard to image people really being upset.

At this point, Mike has a single potential candidate in a race she likely won’t win appealing to voters who don’t vote. Adds up to a pile of beans, but I suppose more fodder as Mike attempts web domination in the SOPA field.

Indeed – fair market value for content has been approaching zero as the internet makes it easier for content creators to produce and distribute it to more people.

This is where the “content industry” has failed – they thought they could hold onto this “scarcity” – when in fact there is a huge amount of extremely-cheap-to-free content out there (and I’m not talking about infringement) that is “good enough” for a large percentage of consumers.

I have zero reason to pay for a video game these days when there are a million free games available, and cheap used games.

I have almost zero reason to pay for music, when there is an abundance of free legal music in the genre’s that I listen to.

I avoid network TV and movies – but if I need my fix, there was legal ways to watch these ad-supported, or borrow a DVD from a friend.

There’s the *real* problem – there’s an over-abundance of good content that is free. The content itself no longer is a viable way to make money; advertising, and other tangible goods are.

Maybe the intent of SOPA IS to stop piracy. If thats the case, then change the bill to only allow the blocking of websites that -exclusively- facilitate piracy, or require the rightsholders to outline each individual link that they would like removed, without putting undue pressure on the likes of Youtube or various torrent sites by telling them something as broad as “remove all Viacom material OR ELSE”. Don’t allow them demand that an entire, otherwise legitimate site be confiscated or that user-generated content sites police its users’ content.

The fact is that the wording of the bill itself will legalise the censorship of anything that could even remotely be construed as piracy. When it comes to the enforcement of laws, the only thing that matters is the exact wording of a law – the original intention literally means nothing at all.

GoodLatte? WTF?

I need a coffee now.

You’d be surprised how many of my lay friends were oriented on SOPA/PIPA from all the hubbub this week through no involvement of my own, especially by the ~4-minute viral video explaining the bills that was making the rounds.

Pro-piracy vs. Pro-censorship?

Hate to break it to ya, chump, but the Pro-censorship candidate will lose every time.

When the public hears a candidate is pro-piracy, do you think they give a rats ass?

When the public hears a candidate is pro-censorship, do you think they will just ignore that fact?

I doubt they will be more moved by your cute “anti-IP and pro-piracy” bent then they will by hearing someone is pro-censorship.

1st amendment being one of the major rallying points for the entire country over last 200 years whereas copyright?? uh, not so much.

“The point is if the story isn’t making mainstream media, it’s because there is no interest – either from them or the people who might want to read the story.

OWS is a marginal, bullshit sort of thing, but it gets media coverage. the SOPA debate? not even getting a mention.”

Is it getting no mention because there is no interest? Or is it because the media industries do not want to put the information out there?

Think about it, if there’s something that can get the people to take notice about something that CAN and WILL affect them negatively, would you want them to know about it and stand up and voice their opposition? Or would you rather “sweep it under the rug”?

As for OWS, well it’s YOUR opinon that it is “marginal, bullshit”. However, for some it’s not. It gets attention however because in these times people are getting tired of “footing the bill” so to speak for all these various industries and corporations. Bailing out GM, bailing out the banks, now the industries, etc. These are huge corporations and industries who while useful and needed, should be allowed to go down in flames if need be.

Also, most of the media attention I’ve personally seen in regards to OWS is nothing more than ad hom attacks on the people participating, for the most part. It’s become like a running joke to throw a bit of info on it then say something like “bunch of commies and whiners” (or something to that effect, which basically marginalizes and quickly dismisses the entire thing).

First off:

Nobody has a moral right to a profit.
Nobody has a moral right to be an actor, musician, football player, plumber, or mortician.

Copyright and patents are merely granted (temporary) incentives to certain disciplines to encourage them to continue to produce their respective content.

That is what the framer intended.
That is what the general population accepts as valid.

That some people want to turn them into perpetual paychecks is essentially irrelevant to the rest of society.

Most people who work at Walmart, or as gas station attendants or fast food workers don’t do so out of desire, but out of necessity. If people in disciples granted special incentives can’t figure out how to monetize their output in a manner the rest of us are willing to pay for and use the time to create new content, that isn’t society’s problem, it is theirs, and if they don’t like it they can join the rest of us on the assembly line.

Additionally, given that many people today are struggling to find work, to keep their homes, to put food on the table they really don’t care that someone who did something clever or inspirational or entertaining 25 years ago can’t sit at home and make 6 figures.

But what they especially don’t care about is some 3rd party corporations, who found ways to contractually benefit from content creator’s works, getting all bent out of shape because technology has allowed people to bypass them and cut them out of the profits. Especially when it has been shown repeatedly that those 3rd parties quite liberally shaft the actually content creators out of their fair share whenever possible.

Moreover, just because it has been a general trend, doesn’t mean people are simply going to let their freedoms, liberties, and advantages of society become more and more impaired because one small group of people doesn’t want to respect the special incentives of another small group.

The fact these people get paid at all shows the incentives work. However, the more the content industry tries to overextend their rights, their liberties, their special incentives, at the cost of the rights and liberties of the very people they rely on, in a misguided attempt to force acquiescence from a group who will never respect their right or obey their privileges is totally counterproductive. Eventually, it merely insures the people they need for their survival will stop respecting their privileges as well.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking this is ALL about piracy.. It’s about control.. The corporations want it and the government is more than willing to give it to them.

Giving corporations that kind of control is BS.

There are plenty of other avenues for them to go after people and they do.

The problem with people is they don’t take the time to look at ALL of the possible outcomes associated with this move.

Don’t ever let them have that first inch when it comes to freedoms.

I haven’t accepted anything.. That’s why I’m voting and campaigning for Ron Paul and anyone else that holds a Constitution first attitude coupled with actions.

Coporate America offshored the factories, then the bank accounts and financial holding companies and now the internet and tech companies will be the next ones. Congress is doing a great job at chasing away any important growth industry with a track record of innovation and sending them overseas to other countries because of crazy regulations like this!

“then I’m forced to go with the actual producers of it, not secondary grifters.”

Like movie studios who claim that films like Avatar and Star Wars STILL haven’t shown a profit, so the actors, writers, directors,et al don’t deserve any royalites?

Way to go boy.
Who does your daddy work for? Disney? Viacom?

Too bad this is a misleading headline. Is there no group (EFF, maybe?) generating lists of pro-and anti-SOPA legislators? A story about one or 2 of them is of very limited use.