5 ms·

I applaud all of these anti-SOPA efforts. What I can't figure out is why our legislators are hell bent on passing this thing. I've not heard of a single ratio

by dos1 15y ago

I applaud all of these anti-SOPA efforts. What I can't figure out is why our legislators are hell bent on passing this thing. I've not heard of a single rational person being individually in favor of this bill. Now, that certainly doesn't mean there aren't any, but by and large I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of US citizens are either ambivalent or in opposition when it comes to SOPA. The only groups that are for this bill, so far as I can tell, are big content providers and their lobbies. If almost no one is in favor of a piece of legislation, and there are millions vehemently opposed to it, why in God's name is it still being considered? Is it really just so certain Congressman can collect money from the proponents of the bill? That seems far too cynical to be accurate. If there's more truth in that statement than false, I think we owe it to ourselves to never re-elect a single sitting member of this Congress. The longer I live, the more ashamed I become of the United States government.

thenextcorner 15y ago
You might be biased because you work in the industry probably most effected by SOPA. The movie & music industry are pushing this piece of legislation through because it will give these companies a lot of power to "protect" their work. Just remember that the people who vote for the bill are getting funded by the same companies protected by the bill. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/21/sopa-supporters-are-cashing-the-medias-checks/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/21/sopa-supporters-are-c...
smokeyj 15y ago
> If almost no one is in favor of a piece of legislation, and there are millions vehemently opposed to it, why in God's name is it still being considered? Because our 'representatives' don't really represent us. Never have, never will, IMO.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  This is why I think "petitions" should have real power, or the gathering of a certain number of people should have the power to veto or at least postpone a certain bill. Clearly the more representative-oriented democracy isn't working too well. We need a democracy with a little bit more "direct democracy" measures thrown in there. I'm not advocating for 100% direct democracy. I'm just saying there is a scale, and we need to push that scale back a little more towards direct democracy, because right now it's too easy for politicians to do whatever they want when in Office when the only repercussion is not being re-elected (maybe). Getting a lot of funding for the 2nd campaign can help negate that "punishment" too sometimes.
  - smhinsey 15y ago
    I am not sure that I'm 100% against this idea, but the situation in California makes me really hesitant about direct democracy of that form. I'd like to think we could implement something like it that incorporates lessons learned, but I'm not too optimistic. If the CA situation went nationwide I'm afraid we'd basically be stuck in this do-nothing gridlock indefinitely.
sehugg 15y ago
Just a theory, but could part of the urgency be to make it pass in time to shut down unauthorized streaming sites for the Superbowl? http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/20/tech/web/super-bowl-online/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/20/tech/web/super-bowl-online/ind...
CWuestefeld 15y ago
If almost no one is in favor of a piece of legislation, and there are millions vehemently opposed to it, why in God's name is it still being considered? Is it really just so certain Congressman can collect money from the proponents of the bill? Just playing devil's advocate... Consider the civil rights laws of the 50s and 60s. These were widely (albeit not universally) reviled, but passing the laws was the right thing to do (in most cases). Indeed, having sworn to uphold the Constitution, the legislators may have been obligated to do so. I do not believe that a strong case can be made for SOPA in this way. But it's definitely a mistake to believe that all legislation should be determined on purely democratic grounds.
- ezy 15y ago
  Civil rights legislation was not "widely reviled". People were protesting in the streets for god's sake. It was not universally approved, of course, especially in the southern states. But I don't think there's a really a comparison to be made here. SOPA was/is bought and paid for for a clearly tiny minority of interests. The civil rights laws emerged as a result of a contentious political process spurred on by protests and resistance by a sizable part of the population. It was certainly democratically motivated --- just not in the sense of counting heads. SOPA has nothing to do with democracy at all. It's about corporations protecting their interests. This happens all the time, of course, but to say that democracy should be thrown out the window because, well, sometimes you just have to "do the right thing" is garbage.
ghshephard 15y ago
If I worked for the music or entertainment industry, then the act, as described http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act would be very attractive. I'm sure HBO, and all of its employees, and their families, would appreciate being able to somehow DNS blackhole all the search engines leading to torrents of the content they try and sell for $18/month on digital cable, or $85/Season for DVDs. If you are Adele, or one of the tens of thousands of artists like her (or their families, or the people that provide services to them) - don't you think you'd like to DNS blackhole, and remove from every search engine of note, http://mp3skull.com/mp3/someone_like_you_adele.html http://mp3skull.com/mp3/someone_like_you_adele.html starting today? The Global entertainment industry is worth 100s of billions of dollars, much of it created in the United States - SOPA is an attempt, however ham handed, at protecting that industry. I'm curious, dos1 - how would you protect rights holders? I don't have any good answers, but perhaps you do.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Getting China/Iran like powers over the Internet is exactly the kind of power they want (they've said it in public). They want to have total control over any kind of infringement happening on the web, no matter how trivial. But don't be fool'ed into thinking that would be enough. They would take down "little guy" competition, too. They've already proved it with the Megaupload video.
- nostromo 15y ago
  > how would you protect rights holders? The entertainment business hasn't ceased to exist despite a decade of internet piracy -- and in fact seems to be doing quite well. Both of your examples, Adele and HBO (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/media/time-warner-reports-double-digit-revenue-increase-expects-more.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/media/time-warner...) are doing great -- so I wouldn't hold them up as examples of the plight of the entertainment industry. So, I'd ask you instead, how can you show that our existing laws that protect rights holders aren't adequate.
  - ghshephard 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joelmichael 15y ago
I tried defending it on Hacker News and received a dozen downvotes. Don't be surprised if everyone in an echo chamber agrees.
- adnam 15y ago
  In your previous comment you essentially said: "I just don't believe the US government wants to shut down Reddit, Wikipedia, YouTube, and all of the other major sites". Aside from avoiding the main issue, that's hardly a "defence". It's just a statement of disbelief.
- Game_Ender 15y ago
  Do you have some links to your posts? I have seen people defend the concept of being able to go after sites that exist solely to profit of others work, but most of those disagree with the methods SOPA employs.
michaelcampbell 15y ago
> What I can't figure out is why our legislators are hell bent on passing this thing. The cynic in my would say "money". They're getting paid to pass it. I don't have any hard data backing that up, which is why I'm only saying in cynically, but if that IS true, would it surprise anyone here?
- grannyg00se 15y ago
  I'd also add: power. The recent history of the US government shows a frightening trend toward giving itself more power. And power to control information is always especially coveted.

by dos1 15y ago

thenextcorner 15y ago

You might be biased because you work in the industry probably most effected by SOPA. The movie & music industry are pushing this piece of legislation through because it will give these companies a lot of power to "protect" their work. Just remember that the people who vote for the bill are getting funded by the same companies protected by the bill. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/21/sopa-supporters-are-cashing-the-medias-checks/ http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/21/sopa-supporters-are-c...

smokeyj 15y ago

> If almost no one is in favor of a piece of legislation, and there are millions vehemently opposed to it, why in God's name is it still being considered? Because our 'representatives' don't really represent us. Never have, never will, IMO.

nextparadigms 15y ago
This is why I think "petitions" should have real power, or the gathering of a certain number of people should have the power to veto or at least postpone a certain bill. Clearly the more representative-oriented democracy isn't working too well. We need a democracy with a little bit more "direct democracy" measures thrown in there. I'm not advocating for 100% direct democracy. I'm just saying there is a scale, and we need to push that scale back a little more towards direct democracy, because right now it's too easy for politicians to do whatever they want when in Office when the only repercussion is not being re-elected (maybe). Getting a lot of funding for the 2nd campaign can help negate that "punishment" too sometimes.
- smhinsey 15y ago
  I am not sure that I'm 100% against this idea, but the situation in California makes me really hesitant about direct democracy of that form. I'd like to think we could implement something like it that incorporates lessons learned, but I'm not too optimistic. If the CA situation went nationwide I'm afraid we'd basically be stuck in this do-nothing gridlock indefinitely.

sehugg 15y ago

Just a theory, but could part of the urgency be to make it pass in time to shut down unauthorized streaming sites for the Superbowl? http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/20/tech/web/super-bowl-online/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/20/tech/web/super-bowl-online/ind...

CWuestefeld 15y ago

If almost no one is in favor of a piece of legislation, and there are millions vehemently opposed to it, why in God's name is it still being considered? Is it really just so certain Congressman can collect money from the proponents of the bill? Just playing devil's advocate... Consider the civil rights laws of the 50s and 60s. These were widely (albeit not universally) reviled, but passing the laws was the right thing to do (in most cases). Indeed, having sworn to uphold the Constitution, the legislators may have been obligated to do so. I do not believe that a strong case can be made for SOPA in this way. But it's definitely a mistake to believe that all legislation should be determined on purely democratic grounds.

ezy 15y ago
Civil rights legislation was not "widely reviled". People were protesting in the streets for god's sake. It was not universally approved, of course, especially in the southern states. But I don't think there's a really a comparison to be made here. SOPA was/is bought and paid for for a clearly tiny minority of interests. The civil rights laws emerged as a result of a contentious political process spurred on by protests and resistance by a sizable part of the population. It was certainly democratically motivated --- just not in the sense of counting heads. SOPA has nothing to do with democracy at all. It's about corporations protecting their interests. This happens all the time, of course, but to say that democracy should be thrown out the window because, well, sometimes you just have to "do the right thing" is garbage.

ghshephard 15y ago

If I worked for the music or entertainment industry, then the act, as described http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act would be very attractive. I'm sure HBO, and all of its employees, and their families, would appreciate being able to somehow DNS blackhole all the search engines leading to torrents of the content they try and sell for $18/month on digital cable, or $85/Season for DVDs. If you are Adele, or one of the tens of thousands of artists like her (or their families, or the people that provide services to them) - don't you think you'd like to DNS blackhole, and remove from every search engine of note, http://mp3skull.com/mp3/someone_like_you_adele.html http://mp3skull.com/mp3/someone_like_you_adele.html starting today? The Global entertainment industry is worth 100s of billions of dollars, much of it created in the United States - SOPA is an attempt, however ham handed, at protecting that industry. I'm curious, dos1 - how would you protect rights holders? I don't have any good answers, but perhaps you do.

nextparadigms 15y ago
Getting China/Iran like powers over the Internet is exactly the kind of power they want (they've said it in public). They want to have total control over any kind of infringement happening on the web, no matter how trivial. But don't be fool'ed into thinking that would be enough. They would take down "little guy" competition, too. They've already proved it with the Megaupload video.
nostromo 15y ago
> how would you protect rights holders? The entertainment business hasn't ceased to exist despite a decade of internet piracy -- and in fact seems to be doing quite well. Both of your examples, Adele and HBO (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/media/time-warner-reports-double-digit-revenue-increase-expects-more.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/media/time-warner...) are doing great -- so I wouldn't hold them up as examples of the plight of the entertainment industry. So, I'd ask you instead, how can you show that our existing laws that protect rights holders aren't adequate.
- ghshephard 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

joelmichael 15y ago

I tried defending it on Hacker News and received a dozen downvotes. Don't be surprised if everyone in an echo chamber agrees.

adnam 15y ago
In your previous comment you essentially said: "I just don't believe the US government wants to shut down Reddit, Wikipedia, YouTube, and all of the other major sites". Aside from avoiding the main issue, that's hardly a "defence". It's just a statement of disbelief.
Game_Ender 15y ago
Do you have some links to your posts? I have seen people defend the concept of being able to go after sites that exist solely to profit of others work, but most of those disagree with the methods SOPA employs.

michaelcampbell 15y ago

> What I can't figure out is why our legislators are hell bent on passing this thing. The cynic in my would say "money". They're getting paid to pass it. I don't have any hard data backing that up, which is why I'm only saying in cynically, but if that IS true, would it surprise anyone here?

grannyg00se 15y ago
I'd also add: power. The recent history of the US government shows a frightening trend toward giving itself more power. And power to control information is always especially coveted.