5 ms·

House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Industry Concerns About SOPA

99 points by d0ne 15y ago

duncan_bayne 15y ago
It's cute that people still get worked up about stuff like this, as though they're honestly surprised that legislators are bought and sold. Here's the thing: the system is broken, and it impossible to fix. It will fail, though, and that's when there's an opportunity to replace it with something better (or, something far far worse).
- narrator 15y ago
  You go against the big media companies and their news services will make sure you don't get elected again. The news networks pick who wins and who loses elections. Propaganda works. Look at all the legislators who signed the net neutrality pledge. They were all defeated, 100%. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/127441-every-candidate-supporting-pcccs-net-neutrality-pledge-lost http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/127441-e...
- gbelote 15y ago
  While you may be right in that the system won't be fixed, the correct response is to not get worked up about it and sit around waiting for the system to fail. It's not like government will disband and people will look around and say "Ok, that didn't work. Anyone have any other ideas?" Keep getting worked up, and keep making noise about it. More people need to care more.
  - yuhong 15y ago
    Yea, it is not impossible to fix if people would simply wake up in time for the next election.
    - knieveltech 15y ago
      Yeah? Wake up and vote for...who? Neither side of our current two party system has made noteworthy improvements. So...it's election day....I'm wide awake...and who am I supposed to be voting for?
- JamesBlair 15y ago
  A naive question: we have a lot of wealthy people sympathetic to the idea of a minimal government, why aren't they buying legislation that prevents this blatant corruption?
  - russell 15y ago
    "Minimal government" is just a slogan used by the people who are buying our government. Their idea of minimal government is eliminating the EPA, fewer bank regulations, and the like. Homeland security, more IP laws, restrictions on privacy? Oh, we have to make some sacrifices for our own security
    - politician 15y ago
      Indeed, the other day I heard some guy on the radio talking about how garbage collection should be provided by the private marketplace rather than as a government service paid for by taxes. Look, that might be a cute experiment in New Hampshire where the population is described in terms of villages, but not in any serious metropolis. I probably should have called in and explained the tragedy of the commons.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > Look, that might be a cute experiment in New Hampshire where the population is described in terms of villages San Jose's garbage service is nominally provided by a private firm. What is it about garbage service that you think requires govt employees?
        anigbrowl 15y ago
        San Jose's garbage service is nominally provided by a private firm. Under contract to the city. The competition happens at the tender level, it would be highly inefficient to have multiple garbage pickup companies vying for the business of each individual resident. Past experience with private fire engine companies and the like suggests that this would end badly.
koenigdavidmj 15y ago
Surprise surprise. This is going to get ramrodded through.
- shareme 15y ago
  People seem to forget that the other previous laws were modified by court decisions to something more reasonable as its less likely to buy off Supreme Court Judges than congress people.. The main fight is not in congress people its those first few Supreme court cases bought before the court by industry big firms like Google, Amazon, etc
redthrowaway 15y ago
Seems like the only hope for stopping this is a presidential veto. Time to step up the pressure on Obama and push for it. He's not exactly an ally, but congress is a foregone conclusion.
- andrewpi 15y ago
  Obama has hired a good number of former RIAA officials to work in his administration, so I'm pretty doubtful of a veto.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    As am I, unfortunately. Still, a presidential veto, however unlikely, still seams more realistic than the bill being defeated in congress.
- yuhong 15y ago
  Well, the well-funded opposition is just beginning.
tptacek 15y ago
Techdirt doing procedural reporting about congress. Do yourself a favor and search for [ycombinator tzs techdirt] (actually, if you have a little time, you can leave the "techdirt" out of that query, because 'tzs is awesome) and get a feel for Techdirt's track record on stuff like this. You can very safely assume that procedural shenanigans for this bill will be covered in excruciating detail by sites that haven't obliterated their own credibility, like the EFF. Meanwhile, all this posting did is get a bunch of people to spend time talking about how "congress is bought and sold" and the system needs to be replaced and something about Obama and boom look at that I flagged this story. Really: go read 'tzs comments; they're fantastic.
- Natsu 15y ago
  You want the EFF's coverage? I think it was already on HN, but here you go: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/sopa-hollywood-finally-gets-chance-break-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/sopa-hollywood-finally... Ars Technica also has a discussion of its constitutionality, as debated by famous constitutional scholars, which might interest those with a legal bent: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/famous-hollywood-backed-first-amendment-lawyer-says-sopa-is-a-ok.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/famous-holly...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Both of those: credible sources. Techdirt? Not so much.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      I hope that provides more value to the story. I take this all as an indication that the industry, especially with the hire of someone like Abrams, is seriously pushing the issue and plans to make it an issue in the next election if they don't get what they want before then.
      - KleinmanB 15y ago
        If this is so devastating why doesnt Google do a "mock seizure" in which there search engine is seized by the government. They cant out influence Hollywood, but they sure can cause a ruckus online.
Vivtek 15y ago
What kind of democracy is that? The best money can buy, son.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 15y ago
Mike Masnick is turning into the Matt Taibbi of copyright. I'm not a supporter of this legislation, but nor am I a supporter of this uninformative tabloid journalism. If Mike Masnick wanted you to be fully informed then he'd explain what the procedural future of this bill is if the judiciary committee does give it the nod (which would not exactly be surprising, because the House judiciary committee is headed by Lamar Smith and is thus going to give the nod to any bill of which he's a sponsor). He could point out how it's then got to survive debate and a floor vote in the House, how it would then have to be reviewed by a Senate committee and debated and voted on there, and how the reconciliation process would come into play if the committees don't agree. But there's none of this, just another 'from the snarky-joke-about-bureaucracy department' subheadline, and another article suggesting certain and imminent doom to follow immediately after the committee hearing. It's pure gutter journalism, and the only redeeming feature is that most of us happen to agree with the author's stated position. I don't even know if this is Masnick's actual position or not; he comes across very much as a journalist who has mastered the art of identifying a market and telling the people in it what they want to hear. He always appeals to the emotion, and never provides context. This is called 'point of view' journalism. Here's an explanation by a well-established practitioner called Matt Labash on a journalism industry website; he was discussing it in the context of conservative/liberal politics, but the fact is that this is a style employed across the political spectrum: [on why point-of-view articles sell so well] Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually. Please don't interpret this as a critique of conservatism in particular; it's populism that I hold in low regard. Nthing Tom's suggestion below that you look to the EFF for informed and informative argument against this legislation. Call me a an elitist snob if you like, but I am sick to the back teeth of this linkbaity rubbish passing itself off as journalism. Shallow uninformed coverage like this makes it easier to marginalize the interests of consumers and open-internet advocates, because the average Joe does not have the patience to listen to someone running around with hair on fire.
jackgavigan 15y ago
Wait. Are we in favour of industry lobbyists now? I'm confused... ;-)

99 points by d0ne 15y ago

It's cute that people still get worked up about stuff like this, as though they're honestly surprised that legislators are bought and sold. Here's the thing: the system is broken, and it impossible to fix. It will fail, though, and that's when there's an opportunity to replace it with something better (or, something far far worse).

narrator 15y ago
You go against the big media companies and their news services will make sure you don't get elected again. The news networks pick who wins and who loses elections. Propaganda works. Look at all the legislators who signed the net neutrality pledge. They were all defeated, 100%. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/127441-every-candidate-supporting-pcccs-net-neutrality-pledge-lost http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/127441-e...
gbelote 15y ago
While you may be right in that the system won't be fixed, the correct response is to not get worked up about it and sit around waiting for the system to fail. It's not like government will disband and people will look around and say "Ok, that didn't work. Anyone have any other ideas?" Keep getting worked up, and keep making noise about it. More people need to care more.
- yuhong 15y ago
  Yea, it is not impossible to fix if people would simply wake up in time for the next election.
  - knieveltech 15y ago
    Yeah? Wake up and vote for...who? Neither side of our current two party system has made noteworthy improvements. So...it's election day....I'm wide awake...and who am I supposed to be voting for?
JamesBlair 15y ago
A naive question: we have a lot of wealthy people sympathetic to the idea of a minimal government, why aren't they buying legislation that prevents this blatant corruption?
- russell 15y ago
  "Minimal government" is just a slogan used by the people who are buying our government. Their idea of minimal government is eliminating the EPA, fewer bank regulations, and the like. Homeland security, more IP laws, restrictions on privacy? Oh, we have to make some sacrifices for our own security
  - politician 15y ago
    Indeed, the other day I heard some guy on the radio talking about how garbage collection should be provided by the private marketplace rather than as a government service paid for by taxes. Look, that might be a cute experiment in New Hampshire where the population is described in terms of villages, but not in any serious metropolis. I probably should have called in and explained the tragedy of the commons.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Look, that might be a cute experiment in New Hampshire where the population is described in terms of villages San Jose's garbage service is nominally provided by a private firm. What is it about garbage service that you think requires govt employees?
      - anigbrowl 15y ago
        San Jose's garbage service is nominally provided by a private firm. Under contract to the city. The competition happens at the tender level, it would be highly inefficient to have multiple garbage pickup companies vying for the business of each individual resident. Past experience with private fire engine companies and the like suggests that this would end badly.

koenigdavidmj 15y ago

Surprise surprise. This is going to get ramrodded through.

shareme 15y ago
People seem to forget that the other previous laws were modified by court decisions to something more reasonable as its less likely to buy off Supreme Court Judges than congress people.. The main fight is not in congress people its those first few Supreme court cases bought before the court by industry big firms like Google, Amazon, etc

redthrowaway 15y ago

Seems like the only hope for stopping this is a presidential veto. Time to step up the pressure on Obama and push for it. He's not exactly an ally, but congress is a foregone conclusion.

andrewpi 15y ago
Obama has hired a good number of former RIAA officials to work in his administration, so I'm pretty doubtful of a veto.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  As am I, unfortunately. Still, a presidential veto, however unlikely, still seams more realistic than the bill being defeated in congress.
yuhong 15y ago
Well, the well-funded opposition is just beginning.

tptacek 15y ago

Techdirt doing procedural reporting about congress. Do yourself a favor and search for [ycombinator tzs techdirt] (actually, if you have a little time, you can leave the "techdirt" out of that query, because 'tzs is awesome) and get a feel for Techdirt's track record on stuff like this. You can very safely assume that procedural shenanigans for this bill will be covered in excruciating detail by sites that haven't obliterated their own credibility, like the EFF. Meanwhile, all this posting did is get a bunch of people to spend time talking about how "congress is bought and sold" and the system needs to be replaced and something about Obama and boom look at that I flagged this story. Really: go read 'tzs comments; they're fantastic.

Natsu 15y ago
You want the EFF's coverage? I think it was already on HN, but here you go: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/sopa-hollywood-finally-gets-chance-break-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/sopa-hollywood-finally... Ars Technica also has a discussion of its constitutionality, as debated by famous constitutional scholars, which might interest those with a legal bent: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/famous-hollywood-backed-first-amendment-lawyer-says-sopa-is-a-ok.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/famous-holly...
- tptacek 15y ago
  Both of those: credible sources. Techdirt? Not so much.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    I hope that provides more value to the story. I take this all as an indication that the industry, especially with the hire of someone like Abrams, is seriously pushing the issue and plans to make it an issue in the next election if they don't get what they want before then.
    - KleinmanB 15y ago
      If this is so devastating why doesnt Google do a "mock seizure" in which there search engine is seized by the government. They cant out influence Hollywood, but they sure can cause a ruckus online.

Vivtek 15y ago

What kind of democracy is that? The best money can buy, son.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 15y ago

Mike Masnick is turning into the Matt Taibbi of copyright. I'm not a supporter of this legislation, but nor am I a supporter of this uninformative tabloid journalism. If Mike Masnick wanted you to be fully informed then he'd explain what the procedural future of this bill is if the judiciary committee does give it the nod (which would not exactly be surprising, because the House judiciary committee is headed by Lamar Smith and is thus going to give the nod to any bill of which he's a sponsor). He could point out how it's then got to survive debate and a floor vote in the House, how it would then have to be reviewed by a Senate committee and debated and voted on there, and how the reconciliation process would come into play if the committees don't agree. But there's none of this, just another 'from the snarky-joke-about-bureaucracy department' subheadline, and another article suggesting certain and imminent doom to follow immediately after the committee hearing. It's pure gutter journalism, and the only redeeming feature is that most of us happen to agree with the author's stated position. I don't even know if this is Masnick's actual position or not; he comes across very much as a journalist who has mastered the art of identifying a market and telling the people in it what they want to hear. He always appeals to the emotion, and never provides context. This is called 'point of view' journalism. Here's an explanation by a well-established practitioner called Matt Labash on a journalism industry website; he was discussing it in the context of conservative/liberal politics, but the fact is that this is a style employed across the political spectrum: [on why point-of-view articles sell so well] Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually. Please don't interpret this as a critique of conservatism in particular; it's populism that I hold in low regard. Nthing Tom's suggestion below that you look to the EFF for informed and informative argument against this legislation. Call me a an elitist snob if you like, but I am sick to the back teeth of this linkbaity rubbish passing itself off as journalism. Shallow uninformed coverage like this makes it easier to marginalize the interests of consumers and open-internet advocates, because the average Joe does not have the patience to listen to someone running around with hair on fire.

jackgavigan 15y ago

Wait. Are we in favour of industry lobbyists now? I'm confused... ;-)